State v. Lowman

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Theardise K. Lowman Jr.'s convictions for possession of a controlled substance and two counts of carrying a concealed weapon. The court held that the initial police encounter was consensual, the subsequent detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the automobile search was supported by probable cause under the automobile exception. The court also rejected Lowman's sufficiency-of-the-evidence and ineffective-assistance claims.

Holdings

1. A party must make a timely and specific objection when evidence is offered at trial to preserve a suppression issue for appellate review; failure to do so waives the objection even if the evidence was previously challenged in a motion to suppress.
2. The officer's initial approach and questioning constituted a consensual, first-tier police-citizen encounter and therefore was not a seizure protected by the Fourth Amendment.
3. The officer had reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts viewed under the totality of the circumstances, to detain Lowman for an investigatory stop.
4. The warrantless search of Lowman's vehicle was valid under the automobile exception because the vehicle was readily mobile and the circumstances supplied probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found inside.
5. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that the machete was concealed on or about Lowman's person because it was conveniently accessible and within his immediate physical reach.
6. Lowman's adequately particularized ineffective-assistance claims did not establish deficient performance on the record, and his conclusory allegations were insufficiently specific for appellate resolution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the initial police encounter and subsequent detention violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the warrantless search of Lowman's vehicle was supported by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, including the automobile exception.
3. Whether the suppression issue was preserved as to evidence found on Lowman's person when counsel failed to renew a specific objection when that evidence was offered at trial.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Lowman's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon based on the machete.
5. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by filing an allegedly untimely and inadequately briefed suppression motion and by failing to call two proposed witnesses.

Disposition

affirmed