State of Nebraska v. Rolander L. Brown

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Rolander L. Brown’s convictions and sentences for second degree murder, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and use of a firearm to commit a felony. The court held that obtaining cell site location information without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment under Carpenter v. United States, but the exclusionary rule did not apply because law enforcement reasonably relied on the Stored Communications Act. The court also held that suppression was not an available remedy for an alleged violation of the Act and that testimony concerning a witness’s subsequent shooting was properly admitted.

Holdings

1. The acquisition of cell site location information generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, and the warrantless acquisition of Brown's information violated his Fourth Amendment rights under Carpenter v. United States.
2. The exclusionary rule did not require suppression of Brown's cell site location information because law enforcement obtained it in objectively reasonable reliance on the Stored Communications Act before Carpenter was decided.
3. Suppression of evidence is not an available remedy for a violation of the Stored Communications Act.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony that Stamps and his girlfriend had been shot because the evidence was relevant to explain Stamps' ultimate decision to cooperate and testify, and the limiting instruction mitigated any danger of unfair prejudice.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brown's sentences, which were within statutory limits and reflected consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, including his difficult upbringing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether obtaining Brown's cell site location information without a warrant supported by probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment and, if so, whether the exclusionary rule required suppression.
2. Whether the cell site location information should have been suppressed because the State allegedly failed to satisfy the Stored Communications Act's requirement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance and materiality to an ongoing criminal investigation.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that prosecution witness Parris Stamps and his girlfriend had been shot, where the testimony was offered to explain Stamps' credibility and cooperation.
4. Whether Brown's sentences were excessive because the district court allegedly failed to adequately consider his difficult upbringing.

Disposition

affirmed