NE declines to apply exclusionary rule to first interpretation of statute for DUI stop out of officer’s jurisdiction

The officer made a DUI stop outside his jurisdiction, and state law makes that important for his authority. The statute also has Fourth Amendment implications. And, the stop was with probable cause. Because the statute had not been interpreted like this before, the court declines to apply the exclusionary rule. State v. Hoehn, 32 Neb. App. 446 (Dec. 5, 2023):

We reach a similar conclusion here that this statutory jurisdiction violation does implicate the Fourth Amendment. We recognize, as does the concurring opinion, that case law exists that holds that certain statutory violations do not also constitute violations of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the facts of this case most closely reflect those found in State v. Cuny, supra. As such, we find no sufficient basis upon which we can reach an outcome inconsistent with the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision in that case. This requires that we now examine whether the exclusionary rule should be applied.

Although we have found that Officer Rockwell’s actions were conducted without jurisdictional authority, we also acknowledge that prior to the stop herein, § 29-215(3) had not been construed by any Nebraska appellate court and that Officer Rockwell could have reasonably believed that he had jurisdictional authority to stop and arrest Hoehn. We further note that Officer Rockwell’s actions were not deliberate, reckless, or in grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights. The culpability standard used in describing the requisite conduct necessary to apply the exclusionary rule is simply not present in this case. See State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916, 902 N.W.2d 98 (2017) (exclusionary rule is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh substantial social costs). To the contrary, the record reveals that Officer Rockwell detained Hoehn after observing Hoehn operating his vehicle in a dangerous manner, which observation provided the officer with probable cause to stop the vehicle subject to jurisdictional authority under a rule of law that had not previously been interpreted by a Nebraska appellate court. Under these limited circumstances, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule in this case.

We have found that although the stop, detainment, and arrest of Hoehn violated his constitutional rights, the facts did not support application of the exclusionary rule in this case. Because we find that Officer Rockwell had probable cause before stopping Hoehn and that his conduct did not rise to the level of a deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Hoehn’s Fourth Amendment rights, the deterrence benefits of suppression do not outweigh the costs and therefore application of the exclusionary rule is not warranted. Despite the fact that our reasoning differs from that of the district court, when the record demonstrates that the decision of the trial court is correct, although such correctness is based on different grounds from those assigned by the trial court, an appellate court will affirm. See State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022).