State v. Schuller

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Dedrick

    No. A-23-312 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2024)

    In furtherance of his argument, Dedrick asserts that the Nebraska Supreme Court previously adopted the definition of constructive possession in State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014), and State v. Warlick, 308 Neb. 656, 956 N.W.2d 269 (2021), and that the pattern instruction departs from the definition set forth in those cases.

  2. State v. Short

    310 Neb. 81 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that court "reexamines the affidavit after deleting the false or misleading statement and including the omitted information" and then determines "whether, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, it still establishes probable cause"

    Id.SeeState v. Schuller , 287 Neb. 500, 507, 843 N.W.2d 626, 632 (2014) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, supra note 51 ). Courts have extended the Franks rationale to omissions in warrant affidavits of material information.

  3. State v. Montoya

    304 Neb. 96 (Neb. 2019)   Cited 20 times

    Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. Schuller , 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014).Id.

  4. State v. Rodriguez

    288 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    But whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that we review independently of the trial court's determination. State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014). V. ANALYSIS

  5. State v. Knutson

    288 Neb. 823 (Neb. 2014)   Cited 38 times
    In State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823, 852 N.W.2d 307 (2014), the defendant was charged with five counts of sexual assault and child abuse for separate incidents involving four minor girls.

    But whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that we review independently of the trial court's determination.State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014).Id.

  6. State v. Isaacson

    No. A-23-082 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2023)

    In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a search warrant may be invalidated if a defendant proves that the affiant officer "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth," included in their affidavit false or misleading statements which were necessary to establish probable cause. State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 507, 843 N.W.2d 626, 632 (2014). The defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that the false statement was made knowingly and intelligently or with reckless disregard for the truth, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.

  7. State v. Miller

    No. A-15-731 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    A claim that an affidavit is insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant is a Fourth Amendment claim. State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014). In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.