Court Opinion

ID: 9710901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:20:00.772142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:00.979765
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein. I do not agree with the statement that: “When it became apparent that the persons for whom the officers were looking were not in the Col-grove car that vehicle should have been permitted to proceed.’’ After the sheriff’s deputy had stopped the car he could have done one of two things. He could have acknowledged that he had made a mistake and permitted the car to proceed, or, as he did in this instance, checked the driver’s license and the registration certificate for the vehicle.
Aeschliman, the sheriff’s deputy, had a legitimate reason for making the stop. It definitely was not a pretext for any other purpose. He had been told that the persons for whom he had warrants were possibly in that car. That was his purpose for stopping it. It was not until the car was actually stopped that it became apparent to him that the persons for whom he was seeking were not in the car. This stop happened at 11:30 p.m., so visibility was not the best. When he noticed his mistake he did what he had a perfect right to do, ask the driver for his driver’s license. When the driver told him he had none, the deputy sheriff properly ran a check to see if he was driving on a suspended license. The driver, who was only 16, had probably never obtained one. It was while running this check that it became evident from the driver’s actions and the *327smell of his breath and clothing that he had been smoking marijuana. Faced with these law violations, Aeschliman did what any good officer would do. The procedure he followed thereafter was in strict accord with good police work.
I emphasize that the stop in this case was not a mere pretext to have a reason to search the car. There was a reason for the stop. In the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search and seizure without a warrant, it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard, to wit: The facts available to the officer at the moment of the search or seizure should warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe the action taken was appropriate. State v. Sotelo, 197 Neb. 334, 248 N. W. 2d 767 (1977). The search was not undertaken until it became apparent to Aeschliman that the driver had been smoking marijuana.
This case is not too different from State v. Benson, filed March 16, 1977, ante p. 14, 251 N. W. 2d 659, where the stop was made pursuant to a radio alert. Here, also, there was a definite reason to stop the vehicle. We upheld the search in Benson because the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana. We there stated that was sufficient to furnish probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant.
I reemphasize, in this case this was not a stop made on the open highway in broad daylight. It was a stop made at 11:30 at night in an attempt to accomplish the purpose for which Aeschliman had made the trip from Gering to Minatare.
White, C. J., and Boslaugh, J., join in this dissent.