State v. Borst
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Nebraska Advance Sheets
state v. borst
Cite as 281 Neb. 217
217
State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
Jay V. Borst, appellant.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed March 18, 2011.
No. S-09-1084.
1. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress: Appeal and
Error. 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. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial
court’s findings for clear error. But whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth
Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination.
2. Constitutional Law: Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure. Warrantless
searches and seizures are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which
must be strictly confined by their justifications.
3. Warrantless Searches. The warrantless search exceptions recognized by the
Nebraska Supreme Court include: (1) searches undertaken with consent or
with probable cause, (2) searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory
searches, (4) searches of evidence in plain view, and (5) searches incident to a
valid arrest.
4. Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure: Proof. In the case of a search and
seizure conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of showing the
applicability of one or more of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.
5. Police Officers and Sheriffs: Search and Seizure: Evidence. A warrantless
seizure is justified under the plain view doctrine if (1) a law enforcement officer
has a legal right to be in the place from which the object subject to the seizure
could be plainly viewed, (2) the seized object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the seized
object itself.
6. Warrants: Affidavits: Evidence. Ordinarily, evidence from which the court can
determine that an arrest warrant was legally valid will consist of the arrest warrant and supporting affidavit; however, the affidavit requirement will be forgiven
where the record establishes the “personal knowledge exception.”
7. Double Jeopardy: Evidence: New Trial: Appeal and Error. The Double
Jeopardy Clause does not forbid a retrial so long as the sum of all the evidence
admitted by a trial court, whether erroneously or not, would have been sufficient
to sustain a guilty verdict.
Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, Inbody,
Chief Judge, and Moore and Cassel, Judges, on appeal thereto
from the District Court for Sarpy County, William B. Zastera,
Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and cause
remanded with directions.
Nebraska Advance Sheets
218
281 nebraska reports
Patrick J. Boylan, Chief Deputy Sarpy County Public
Defender, and Mandy M. Gruhlkey, Senior Certified Law
Student, for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein for
appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack,
and Miller-Lerman, JJ.
Miller-Lerman, J.
NATURE OF CASE
Jay V. Borst appealed his convictions in the district court
for Sarpy County for manufacture of a controlled substance
(marijuana) and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals determined that although the actual arrest warrants
were not in evidence, the testimony of law enforcement officers that they had outstanding arrest warrants was sufficient
to establish that the officers had valid arrest warrants and
therefore a lawful right to be in Borst’s home when they saw
the controlled substances in plain view. The Court of Appeals,
in a memorandum opinion filed June 21, 2010, concluded
that the district court did not err when it overruled parts of
Borst’s motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals therefore
affirmed Borst’s convictions.
We granted Borst’s petition for further review. We reverse
the decision of the Court of Appeals, and we remand the cause
to the Court of Appeals with directions to reverse Borst’s convictions and to remand the cause to the district court for a new
trial on both charges.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 2, 2008, three officers from the Sarpy County
sheriff’s office came to Borst’s home to serve outstanding
misdemeanor arrest warrants on Borst. While at the home, the
officers observed, in plain view, a growing marijuana plant and
a syringe containing methamphetamine. Borst told the officers
that both items belonged to him. Later, after he had been taken
to a holding cell and given Miranda warnings, Borst stated
Nebraska Advance Sheets
state v. borst
Cite as 281 Neb. 217
219
that he had started growing the marijuana plant from seeds
and that he had purchased the methamphetamine earlier in
the day. Borst was charged with manufacture of a controlled
substance (marijuana) and possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine).
Prior to trial, Borst moved to suppress the physical evidence
seized from his home and the statements he made to the officers. He asserted in his motion to suppress that there were no
exigent circumstances permitting the officers to enter his home
without a search warrant, that the officers did not have a valid
arrest warrant for him, and that the officers began an explora
tory search after they illegally entered his home to arrest him
without a valid warrant.
Following a suppression hearing, the district court found
that the officers had a lawful right to be in Borst’s home, that
they had an active warrant for Borst’s arrest, and that they
were serving the warrant in a proper manner. The court’s findings were based on the officers’ testimony that they had outstanding traffic-related arrest warrants for Borst. The State did
not offer the actual arrest warrants into evidence. The court
overruled Borst’s motion to suppress the physical evidence—
specifically, the marijuana plant and the syringe—seized from
the home. The court sustained the motion to suppress the
statements Borst made in the home, because he was in custody and had not been given Miranda warnings. However, the
court ruled that the statements Borst made at the jail regarding controlled substances after receiving Miranda warnings
were admissible.
Following a bench trial, Borst was found guilty of the
charged offenses, and the court sentenced him to 20 months’
to 4 years’ imprisonment for each offense and ordered the
sentences to be served concurrently. Borst appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals and claimed, inter alia, that
the district court erred when it overruled parts of his motion
to suppress. Borst argued that the court’s findings were erroneous, because the State did not offer the arrest warrants as
evidence at the suppression hearing or at trial, the court never
examined the warrants, and thus the State failed to establish
the validity of the arrest warrants, which, in turn, would have
Nebraska Advance Sheets
220
281 nebraska reports
justified the warrantless search. The Court of Appeals rejected
Borst’s arguments. The Court of Appeals noted that although
the arrest warrants were not offered or received into evidence,
testimony by the officers was sufficient to establish that “there
were three valid outstanding warrants for Borst.” The Court
of Appeals rejected Borst’s other arguments and affirmed
his convictions.
Borst filed a petition for further review. We granted the
p
etition.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Borst asserts on further review that the Court of Appeals
erred when “it affirmed the trial court’s overruling of the
Motion to Suppress because the [S]tate never offered the arrest
warrants it used to justify [Borst’s] arrest.”
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
[1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment,
we apply a two-part standard of review. Regarding historical
facts, we review the trial court’s findings for clear error. 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. Garcia, 281 Neb. 1, 792
N.W.2d 882 (2011).
ANALYSIS
The State Was Required to Offer the Arrest Warrants and
Affidavits Into Evidence in Order for the District Court
to Determine Whether the Officers Had Valid Arrest
Warrants and Therefore Had a Legal Right
to Be in Borst’s Home.
Borst claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed
the district court’s order that overruled his motion to suppress
both the physical evidence that was seized from his home and
the statements he made in the holding cell. Borst asserts that
because the State relied on the officers’ testimony that they had
outstanding warrants rather than offering the actual warrants
into evidence, the State failed to prove an exception justifying a warrantless search of his home. We agree that in order
Nebraska Advance Sheets
state v. borst
Cite as 281 Neb. 217
221
to determine whether the officers had a legal right to be in
Borst’s home, it was necessary for the State to offer the arrest
warrants and supporting affidavits into evidence. Without the
arrest warrants and affidavits in evidence, the court could not
determine their validity. We conclude therefore that the district
court erred when it overruled Borst’s motion to suppress the
physical evidence seized from his home and the statements he
made in the holding cell and that the Court of Appeals erred
when it affirmed the ruling.
[2-4] There is no dispute in this case that the officers did
not have a search warrant to search Borst’s home. Therefore,
this case must be analyzed as a warrantless search and seizure
case. We have stated that warrantless searches and seizures
are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated
exceptions, which must be strictly confined by their justifications. State v. Gorup, 279 Neb. 841, 782 N.W.2d 16 (2010).
The warrantless search exceptions recognized by this court
include: (1) searches undertaken with consent or with probable
cause, (2) searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory searches, (4) searches of evidence in plain view, and (5)
searches incident to a valid arrest. Id. In the case of a search
and seizure conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of showing the applicability of one or more of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Smith, 279 Neb. 918,
782 N.W.2d 913 (2010).
[5] The district court in this case found the warrantless
search to have been justified as a search of evidence in plain
view. A warrantless seizure is justified under the plain view
doctrine if (1) a law enforcement officer has a legal right to
be in the place from which the object subject to the seizure
could be plainly viewed, (2) the seized object’s incriminating
nature is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful
right of access to the seized object itself. State v. Keup, 265
Neb. 96, 655 N.W.2d 25 (2003). The court overruled Borst’s
motion to suppress the seized physical evidence after it found
that when the officers saw the evidence, they “had a lawful
right to be where they were [and] they had an active warrant
for [Borst].”
Nebraska Advance Sheets
222
281 nebraska reports
The sole evidence admitted at the suppression hearing to
support the finding that the officers had an active arrest warrant and therefore had a lawful right to be in Borst’s home was
the testimony of one of the three officers, who testified that
they had outstanding warrants for Borst’s arrest. At trial, that
officer and the other two officers each testified that they had
arrest warrants when they went to Borst’s home. The State did
not offer the actual arrest warrants or supporting affidavits into
evidence at either the suppression hearing or the trial.
Borst argues that the State did not meet its burden to show
the applicability of the plain view exception to the warrant
requirement, because it did not offer the arrest warrant or warrants into evidence. Without the arrest warrants, Borst argues,
the court could not determine that the warrants were valid and
that therefore the officers had a legal right to be in his home,
where the evidence they seized could be plainly viewed. We
agree with Borst’s argument.
In support of his argument, Borst cites State v. Wenke, 276
Neb. 901, 758 N.W.2d 405 (2008), which involved a warrantless search sought to be justified as a search incident to an
arrest based on an arrest warrant. The present case involves a
warrantless search asserted to be justified based on the plain
view exception. Although this case and Wenke involve different
exceptions justifying a warrantless search and seizure, in both
cases, the existence of a valid arrest warrant was at issue and
was necessary to establish the exception. In order to establish
the requirement of the plain view doctrine that the officers had
a legal right to be in the place in which the evidence was in
plain view, the State in this case asserted that the officers had
a legal right to be in Borst’s home because they were there to
serve valid arrest warrants. To succeed on this theory, the State
needed to establish that the arrest warrants were valid.
In Wenke, we concluded that the warrantless search of the
defendant’s person was constitutionally permissible as a search
incident to a lawful arrest because the warrant/order of commitment issued by the county court served as a valid arrest
warrant. As Borst notes, it is apparent that both this court and
the trial court in Wenke examined the actual warrant to determine whether it was a valid arrest warrant. Courts in other
Nebraska Advance Sheets
state v. borst
Cite as 281 Neb. 217
223
jurisdictions have stated in cases involving suppression that
in order to establish that an arrest warrant is valid, the actual
warrant and supporting affidavit must ordinarily be offered
into evidence. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has stated
in part that
[i]t is well-settled law that when a state intends to justify
an arrest on the basis of a warrant, the burden is on the
state to produce the warrant and supporting affidavit in
order that the trial court can determine whether the warrant was properly issued and constitutionally sufficient.
State v. Taylor, 621 A.2d 1252, 1254 (R.I. 1993) (cases collected). The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas has held that
when an accused objects to admission of evidence on the
ground that it is tainted by a warrantless arrest and the
State relies on an arrest warrant, in the absence of waiver,
reviewable error will result unless the record reflects that
the arrest warrant was exhibited to the trial judge for
a ruling.
Gant v. State, 649 S.W.2d 30, 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
In the present case, Borst asserted in his motion to suppress
that the officers “did not have a valid arrest warrant for him.”
The issue of the validity of the arrest warrant was therefore
before the court, and Borst did not waive the issue. The State
had the burden to prove the justification for the warrantless
search, and part of the State’s asserted justification was that the
officers had a legal right to be in Borst’s home because they
were serving valid arrest warrants. In order to establish such
legal right, the State needed to prove that the arrest warrants
were valid, and the officers’ testimony was not competent to
establish that the arrest warrants were legally valid. Whether
the warrants were valid was a question of law that needed to
be determined by the court, and the court could not decide the
issue based only on the officers’ testimony. In State v. Davidson,
9 Neb. App. 9, 607 N.W.2d 221 (2000), a case involving a warrantless search incident to an arrest, the defendant challenged
the validity of the arrest warrant, and the Court of Appeals
concluded that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have
been granted. The Court of Appeals reasoned that although the
arrest warrant was in evidence, the State failed to establish that
Nebraska Advance Sheets
224
281 nebraska reports
the search was the result of a valid, legally issued arrest warrant, because the State failed to present the supporting affidavit
or other evidence from which it could be determined that the
warrant was valid and the arrest was justified.
On further review, we stated in State v. Davidson, 260 Neb.
417, 422, 618 N.W.2d 418, 424 (2000), that
[i]n most instances, the lack of a sufficient affidavit or
other supporting document establishing probable cause
means that the warrant is invalid. See, generally, Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d
527 (1983); State v. Johnson, 256 Neb. 133, 589 N.W.2d
108 (1999).
However, in Davidson, we adopted the “personal knowledge
exception” to the customary necessity of requiring an affidavit in recognition of “the commonsense notion that there
is no point in a judge executing an affidavit when that judge
has personal knowledge of facts establishing probable cause.”
260 Neb. at 424, 618 N.W.2d at 425. In this context, personal
knowledge includes not only events witnessed by the issuing
judge but also records of the court which the issuing judge has
reviewed. In Davidson, notwithstanding the State’s urging, the
evidence did not meet the requirements of the personal knowledge exception.
On further review in Davidson, although we agreed with the
Court of Appeals’ analysis with respect to certain weaknesses
in the evidence, we reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
After considering the content of the warrant and the testimony
of an arresting officer who was an investigator, we concluded
that although the evidence did not establish the arrest warrant
was valid, the arresting officers relied in good faith on the
arrest warrant, and that therefore evidence obtained as a result
of the search incident to the arrest did not need to be excluded.
Davidson, supra (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897,
104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984), setting forth the
good faith exception to the exclusionary rule).
[6] Our cases indicate that in order to prove a justification
for a warrantless search when the justification is based on
a valid arrest warrant, there must be evidence in the record
from which the court can determine that the arrest warrant
Nebraska Advance Sheets
state v. borst
Cite as 281 Neb. 217
225
was legally valid. Ordinarily, this evidence will consist of the
arrest warrant and supporting affidavit; however, the affidavit
requirement will be forgiven where the record establishes the
“personal knowledge exception.”
In Davidson, we concluded that the evidence did not need
to be excluded, because the State’s justification for the warrantless search was based on the officers’ good faith reliance
on the arrest warrant and the record established this justification was warranted. In contrast, in the present case, the State
did not assert a good faith exception. Instead, the State in the
instant case based its justification for the warrantless search
on the existence of active valid arrest warrants. Given the fact
that Borst challenged the validity of the arrest warrants in his
motion to suppress, the burden fell on the State to establish
the existence of a valid arrest warrant, and the State failed to
do so.
The State sought to establish its justification for the warrantless search in this case on the basis that the officers testified
that they were executing valid arrest warrants and in so doing
observed the challenged evidence in plain view. The record
does not contain the arrest warrants or supporting affidavits.
On the record presented, the State did not establish the validity
of the warrant or warrants and it did not establish justification
of the warrantless search. Thus, the district court erred when
it overruled Borst’s motion to suppress the physical evidence
seized from Borst’s home. The Court of Appeals similarly
erred when it affirmed this ruling.
Borst’s Statements in the Holding Cell Were Further
Fruit of the Warrantless Search and Similarly
Should Have Been Suppressed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling
that overruled the portion of Borst’s motion to suppress which
sought to suppress statements he made in jail regarding his
ownership of the marijuana and methamphetamine. Borst challenged this affirmance on further review. The State responds
that the jailhouse statements should not be suppressed, because
Borst had been given Miranda warnings by then. We agree with
Borst that the jail statements should have been suppressed.
Nebraska Advance Sheets
226
281 nebraska reports
We have stated that Miranda warnings, standing alone, are
“an insufficient intervening circumstance to separate a subsequent confession from the taint of an illegal search.” State v.
Gorup, 279 Neb. 841, 861, 782 N.W.2d 16, 32 (2010) (citing
State v. Abdouch, 230 Neb. 929, 434 N.W.2d 317 (1989)). In
Abdouch, we stated that
the Miranda warning, by itself, does not preclude exclusion of a defendant’s custodial statement induced by confrontation with evidence obtained through a constitutionally invalid search because the Miranda warning does not
break the cause-and-effect relationship between an illegal
search and a defendant’s subsequent incriminating statement, confession, or admission.
230 Neb. at 948, 434 N.W.2d at 329.
In both Gorup and Abdouch, we quoted Professor LaFave’s
treatise with respect to evaluating the effect of the Miranda
warnings following a Fourth Amendment violation: “‘“[I]t is
crystal clear that giving the defendant the Miranda warnings
will not break the causal chain between an illegal search and
a subsequent confession. . . .”’” Gorup, 279 Neb. at 856, 782
N.W.2d at 29 (quoting 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure,
a Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.4(c) (2d ed. 1987)).
Accord Abdouch, supra.
In Abdouch, we noted that being confronted with the illegally
seized evidence, the defendant who was being interrogated at
the county corrections facility “undoubtedly recognized the
futility of remaining silent and admitted her participation in
production of the contraband marijuana.” 230 Neb. at 949, 434
N.W.2d at 329. We therefore concluded that the defendant’s
“custodial statements were obtained as an exploitation of the
constitutionally invalid search and seizure of evidence at [her]
residence and, as such, were the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’”
and should be suppressed. Id.
In the present case, Borst made his statements at issue in
the holding cell after being given Miranda warnings. At this
point, the search had been fruitful and Borst knew it. He knew
that the officers had seized the marijuana plant and the syringe
from his home, which knowledge likely prompted him to admit
his involvement with the controlled substances. We conclude
Nebraska Advance Sheets
state v. borst
Cite as 281 Neb. 217
227
that Borst’s statements in the holding cell were the fruit of
the search and seizure that occurred in his home. Because, as
we have determined above, the State failed to justify the warrantless search and seizure of physical evidence from Borst’s
home, the subsequent statements in jail were tainted, and these
statements should also have been suppressed. The Court of
Appeals erred when it affirmed the district court’s ruling denying this portion of the motion to suppress.
The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Sufficient to
Support Borst’s Convictions, and Therefore the
Cause Should Be Remanded for a New Trial.
[7] Denial of those portions of Borst’s motion to suppress
seeking suppression of the physical evidence in his home and
his statements in jail was error, and the Court of Appeals erred
when it affirmed these rulings. These errors are reversible error.
Having found reversible error, we must determine whether the
totality of the evidence admitted by the district court was sufficient to sustain Borst’s convictions. If it was not, then concepts of double jeopardy would not allow a remand for a new
trial. State v. Rogers, 277 Neb. 37, 760 N.W.2d 35 (2009). The
Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid a retrial so long as the
sum of all the evidence admitted by a trial court, whether erroneously or not, would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty
verdict. Id.
The record shows that the evidence presented in this case,
including the physical evidence of the marijuana plant and the
syringe seized from Borst’s home and the statements Borst
made in jail, was sufficient to sustain convictions for manufacture of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession of a
controlled substance (methamphetamine). The cause therefore
should be remanded for a new trial on both charges.
CONCLUSION
The record does not establish an exception to the prohibition
against warrantless searches. The State failed to offer the actual
arrest warrants and supporting affidavits into evidence and
therefore did not establish that the arrest warrants were valid.
The district court erred when it determined that the officers
Nebraska Advance Sheets
228
281 nebraska reports
had a legal right to be in Borst’s home and when it overruled
Borst’s motion to suppress both the physical evidence seized
from Borst’s home and the subsequent tainted statements he
made in the holding cell. Consequently, the Court of Appeals
erred when it affirmed the district court’s ruling on the motion
to suppress. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals,
and we remand the cause to the Court of Appeals with directions to reverse Borst’s convictions and to remand the cause to
the district court for a new trial on both charges.
R eversed and remanded with directions.
Wright, J., not participating.
Bryan S. Behrens, an individual, et al., appellants
and cross-appellees, v. Christian R. Blunk,
an individual, et al., appellees
and cross-appellants.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed March 18, 2011.
No. S-10-342.
supplemental opinion
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J. Patrick
Mullen, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
David A. Domina and Terry A. White, of Domina Law
Group, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
Mark C. Laughlin and Patrick S. Cooper, of Fraser Stryker,
P.C., L.L.O., for appellees Christian R. Blunk and Berkshire &
Blunk.
William R. Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P.,
for appellees Christian R. Blunk and Abrahams, Kaslow &
Cassman, L.L.P.
Heavican, C.J., Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack,
and Miller-Lerman, JJ.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.