State v. Hammond

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/20/2023 08:07 AM CDT




                                                         - 362 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        315 Nebraska Reports
                                                 STATE V. HAMMOND
                                                  Cite as 

                                        State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
                                         Sheena Hammond, appellant.
                                                    ___ N.W.2d ___

                                         Filed October 20, 2023.   No. S-22-867.

                 1. Convictions: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of a criminal conviction,
                    an appellate court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to
                    the prosecution.
                 2. Motions to Suppress: Trial: Pretrial Procedure: Appeal and Error.
                    When a motion to suppress is denied pretrial and again during trial on
                    renewed objection, an appellate court considers all the evidence, both
                    from the trial and from the hearings on the motion to suppress.
                 3. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress:
                    Appeal and Error. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup-
                    press evidence 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 indepen-
                    dently of the trial court’s determination. And where the facts are largely
                    undisputed, the ultimate question is an issue of law.
                 4. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Appeal and Error. An
                    appellate court applies a two-part analysis when reviewing whether a
                    consent to search was voluntary. As to the historical facts or circum-
                    stances leading up to a consent to search, the appellate court reviews
                    the trial court’s findings for clear error. However, whether those facts
                    or circumstances constituted a voluntary consent to search, satisfying
                    the Fourth Amendment, is a question of law, which the appellate court
                    reviews independently of the trial court. And where the facts are largely
                    undisputed, the ultimate question is an issue of law.
                 5. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Warrantless Searches.
                    Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I,
                    § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution guarantee against unreasonable
                                     - 363 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      315 Nebraska Reports
                             STATE V. HAMMOND
                              Cite as 

      searches and seizures. Searches without a valid warrant are per se
      unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-
      delineated exceptions.
 6.   Warrantless Searches. The warrantless search exceptions Nebraska has
      recognized include: (1) searches undertaken with consent, (2) searches
      under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory searches, (4) searches of
      evidence in plain view, and (5) searches incident to a valid arrest.
 7.   Warrantless Searches: Proof. It is the State’s burden to show that a
      search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.
 8.   Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Duress. Generally, to be
      effective under the Fourth Amendment, consent to a search must be a
      free and unconstrained choice, and not the product of a will overborne.
 9.   Warrantless Searches: Duress. Consent must be given voluntarily and
      not as a result of duress or coercion, whether express, implied, physical,
      or psychological.
10.   Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure. The determination of whether
      the facts and circumstances constitute a voluntary consent to a search,
      satisfying the Fourth Amendment, is a question of law.
11.   Search and Seizure. Whether consent to a search was voluntary is to be
      determined from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving
      of consent.
12.   Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs. Recitation of magic
      words is unnecessary to give consent to a search. The key inquiry
      focuses on what the typical reasonable person would have understood
      by the exchange between the officer and the suspect.
13.   Search and Seizure. Consent to search may be implied by action rather
      than words.
14.   Police Officers and Sheriffs: Warrantless Searches. While there is
      no requirement that police must always inform citizens of their right to
      refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search,
      knowledge of the right to refuse is a factor to be considered in the vol-
      untariness analysis.
15.   Appeal and Error. When an issue is raised for the first time in an
      appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot
      commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it
      for disposition.
16.   ____. An alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifi-
      cally argued in the brief of the party asserting the error to be considered
      by an appellate court.
17.   Warrantless Searches: Probable Cause. Probable cause, standing
      alone, is not an exception that justifies the search of a person without
      a warrant.
                                   - 364 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. HAMMOND
                             Cite as 

18. Criminal Law: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Arrests: Probable
    Cause. Under Nebraska law, a person may be arrested without a war-
    rant when an officer has probable cause to believe the person either
    has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in the offi-
    cer’s presence.
19. Search and Seizure: Probable Cause: Appeal and Error. An appel-
    late court determines whether probable cause existed under an objective
    standard of reasonableness, given the known facts and circumstances,
    but appellate courts should avoid an excessively technical dissection of
    the factors supporting probable cause.
20. Probable Cause: Words and Phrases. The concept of probable cause,
    as the name implies, is based on probabilities. It requires only a prob-
    ability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing
    of such activity.
21. Probable Cause: Police Officers and Sheriffs. To find probable cause,
    officers are not required to rule out all innocent explanations for suspi-
    cious facts.
22. ____: ____. Probable cause may be based on commonsense conclusions
    about human behavior, and due weight should be given to inferences
    by law enforcement officers based on their experience and special-
    ized training.

  Appeal from the District Court for Gage County: Ricky A.
Schreiner, Judge. Affirmed.
   Lee Timan, of Nelson, Clark & Timan, P.C., for appellant.
  Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Teryn Blessin for
appellee.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
and Papik, JJ., and Pirtle, Chief Judge.
   Cassel, J.
                     I. INTRODUCTION
   Sheena Hammond appeals her convictions for possession of
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia following a stipu-
lated bench trial. Hammond’s primary contention is that the
district court erred when it overruled her motion to sup-
press. The court rejected her Fourth Amendment arguments,
concluding that (1) Hammond consented to a search of her
                               - 365 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                        STATE V. HAMMOND
                         Cite as 

vehicle, wherein certain illegal items were found, and (2) a
subsequent search of her person occurred incident to a valid
arrest. The critical issue is whether Hammond’s words and
actions manifested consent. Because we conclude that they
did, we affirm.
                        II. BACKGROUND
                  1. Police-Citizen Encounter
   We begin by describing Hammond’s encounter with police
officers. In doing so, we generally recite the historical facts set
forth in the district court’s order overruling Hammond’s motion
to suppress. We supplement the court’s findings, as necessary,
with the parties’ stipulated facts that the district court received
as evidence at trial.
   On September 5, 2021, Ethan Jordan, a police officer with
the Beatrice Police Department, and Brian Najera, an officer
in training, made initial contact with Hammond in response
to a call complaining about a possible intoxicated driver. The
reporting party stated that an individual was inside an automo-
tive parts store in Beatrice, Nebraska, “‘barely able to stand up
straight’” and “‘about to fall over,’” and the reporting party
was concerned about the possibility of her causing an accident
should she drive away.
   Upon arriving at the automotive parts store, Jordan “con-
tacted” Hammond as she was standing by her vehicle in the
parking lot, while an employee of the store appeared to be
examining the inside of her vehicle through the open driver’s-
side door. Jordan testified that when he “contacte[d]” her,
Hammond was “very talkative, was making kind of quick
movements and appeared unable to stand still.” Jordan con-
cluded, based on his training in interdiction and “Advanced
Roadside Impairment & Drug Enforcement” training, that
Hammond “might be under the influence of a CNS stimulant.”
   During Jordan’s conversation with Hammond about why he
was there and what he was doing, Hammond “denied being
under the influence of drugs or alcohol or driving errati-
cally.” Jordan asked Hammond if she would perform some
                             - 366 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                      STATE V. HAMMOND
                       Cite as 

field sobriety maneuvers, and “video of this encounter [from
Jordan’s body camera] (Exhibit 2) indicate[d] she was fidgety
and talkative but cooperative and pleasant and did not object
to doing the requested maneuvers.” Hammond “was not hand-
cuffed or restrained in any manner during this time.” She was
able to lean into the open door of her vehicle and maintained
possession of her vehicle’s keys until she placed them on the
hood of her vehicle after being asked to do so by Jordan.
   During the horizontal gaze nystagmus portion of the field
sobriety maneuvers, Jordan noted that “nystagmus was not
present, but that [Hammond’s] eyes were unable to converge
and she was swaying.” Jordan determined, based on his train-
ing and experience, that Hammond “did not appear to be
under the influence of alcohol, however, she did show signs
consistent of being under the influence of a CNS stimulant
(like methamphetamine).” Jordan asked Hammond when she
last “used” and if she had any illegal items in her vehicle, to
which Hammond responded that she did not. He then asked if
Hammond would mind if “‘we look,’” and she responded, “‘If
you absolutely need to . . . .’” Jordan again asked to “‘take a
look’” in Hammond’s vehicle, to which she responded, “‘If
you really need to go look, more power to you.’”
   While the officers prepared to search Hammond’s vehicle,
she asked if they would hand her cigarettes to her, and Jordan
responded, “‘Absolutely.’” She then “stood by the vehicle and
made a call on her cell phone,” during which she asked some-
one to come to the automotive parts store “‘right now.’”
   The officers then conducted a thorough search of
Hammond’s vehicle, during which Najera located a “folded
up” receipt “stuffed in the steering wheel cover that contained
a white crystalline substance that he recognized through
training and experience as possible methamphetamine.” The
receipt was from a gas station where Hammond had previ-
ously told the officers that she worked. Relying on Jordan’s
testimony and exhibit 2 (the video recording from Jordan’s
body camera), the court found that “at no time prior to . . .
                              - 367 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. HAMMOND
                        Cite as 

Najera finding the receipt in the steering wheel cover did . . .
Hammond ever ask them to stop searching.”
   Immediately after Najera discovered “the possible metham-
phetamine,” Jordan took Hammond into custody, placed her
in handcuffs, and conducted a search of her person. Jordan
located “additional items of alleged illegal contraband during
that search,” including a syringe and a “micro baggie” contain-
ing a white crystalline substance. A crime laboratory report
later identified both white crystalline substances seized in the
encounter as methamphetamine.
                           2. Charges
   The State filed an information charging Hammond with pos-
session of methamphetamine and possession of drug parapher-
nalia. Hammond pled not guilty to both charges.
                    3. Motion to Suppress
   Prior to trial, Hammond filed a motion to suppress all of
the evidence obtained during the encounter. In the motion,
Hammond asserted that she did not voluntarily consent to the
initial search of her vehicle and that therefore, her arrest and
the subsequent search of her person were fruit of the poison-
ous tree. She further asserted that the officers did not have
probable cause to arrest her, because “[a]t the time [she] was
detained, law enforcement did not yet have confirmation that
the item found in her vehicle was in fact a controlled sub-
stance.” Hammond claimed that but for the “illegal arrest” and
the resulting search of her person, the officers would not have
discovered additional evidence.
   The district court held a hearing on the motion to suppress,
during which it received evidence, including an audio record-
ing of the call for service; video recordings from the officers’
body cameras, including exhibit 2, discussed above; and the
testimony of both officers.
   Following the hearing, the district court entered an order
overruling Hammond’s motion for failure to allege a Fourth
Amendment violation. In overruling the motion, the court
                                   - 368 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     315 Nebraska Reports
                           STATE V. HAMMOND
                            Cite as 

made specific factual findings we have already summarized.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, it concluded
that (1) the search of Hammond’s vehicle was based upon her
“voluntary consent” and (2) the search of Hammond’s person
occurred incident to a valid arrest.
               4. Bench Trial and Convictions
   The case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts,
where Hammond preserved her objections raised in the motion
to suppress. The court received as evidence the exhibits pre-
viously presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress
and other exhibits, including photographs of the items seized
during the September 5, 2021, encounter; a crime laboratory
report; and a document setting forth the parties’ stipulated
facts. Neither party presented argument at trial.
   Following trial, the court found Hammond guilty of both
crimes charged. It sentenced her to 36 months’ probation for
the possession of methamphetamine conviction and to a $100
fine for the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction.
   Hammond filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our
docket. 1
               III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Hammond assigns, restated, that the district court erred in
(1) overruling her motion to suppress the evidence seized in
the September 5, 2021, encounter; (2) overruling her renewed
objections to that evidence at trial; and (3) finding the evidence
was sufficient to support her convictions.
               IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
  [1] In an appeal of a criminal conviction, an appellate
court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution. 2
  [2] When a motion to suppress is denied pretrial and
again during trial on renewed objection, an appellate court
1
    See 

(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
2
    State v. Dailey, 

, 

 (2023).
                                - 369 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                         STATE V. HAMMOND
                          Cite as 

considers all the evidence, both from the trial and from the
hearings on the motion to suppress. 3
    [3] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup-
press evidence 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. And where the facts are largely undis-
puted, the ultimate question is an issue of law. 4
    [4] A nearly identical standard of review applies to con-
sensual search cases. Because of the confusion we discuss
below, we set forth the entire correct standard. An appellate
court applies a two-part analysis when reviewing whether a
consent to search was voluntary. As to the historical facts or
circumstances leading up to a consent to search, the appellate
court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error. However,
whether those facts or circumstances constituted a voluntary
consent to search, satisfying the Fourth Amendment, is a ques-
tion of law, which the appellate court reviews independently of
the trial court. And where the facts are largely undisputed, the
ultimate question is an issue of law. 5
    We shifted to this articulation in 2009, 6 and we believe that
it is the better-reasoned approach. As one legal scholar, relying
on a decision of another state’s high court, has observed:
       Underlying this position is the notion that “the concept
       of ‘voluntariness’ reflects a balance between the need for
       effective law enforcement and society’s belief that the
       coercive powers of law enforcement must not be unfairly
       exercised,” and that declaring “whether certain police
3
  State v. Shiffermiller, 

, 

 (2019).
4
  State v. Garcia, ante p. 74, 

 (2023).
5
  State v. Saitta, 

, 

 (2020).
6
  See State v. Hedgcock, 

, 

 (2009).
                                  - 370 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                          STATE V. HAMMOND
                           Cite as 

     conduct is or is not unfairly coercive sets the norms that
     fix the limits of acceptable police behavior,” norms that
     “should have jurisdiction-wide application.” 7
  But when we shifted the standard of review, we did so with-
out expressly repudiating old standards set forth in our prior
opinions, 8 which had required reviewing the voluntariness of
consent as a question of fact. Occasionally, these standards
have crept into lower court opinions that relied on our earlier
cases. 9 To eliminate any confusion, we now disapprove those
7
  6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth
  Amendment § 11.7(c) at 585 (6th ed. 2020) (quoting State v. Thurman,
  

 (Utah 1993)).
8
  See, State v. Mata, 

, 

 (2003), abrogated on
  other grounds, State v. Rogers, 

, 

 (2009); State
  v. Tucker, 

, 

 (2001); State v. Chitty, 

, 

 (1998); State v. Aguirre-Rojas, 

,
  

 (1997); State v. Ready, 

, 

  (1997); State v. Graham, 

, 

 (1992); State v.
  Shurter, 

, 

 (1991); State v. Prahin, 

, 

 (1990); State v. Bowen, 

, 

 (1989); State v. Bonczynski, 

, 

 (1987);
  State v. Peery, 

, 

 (1986); State v. Ferrell, 

, 

 (1984); State v. Christianson, 

,
  

 (1984); State v. Garcia, 

, 

  (1984); State v. Billups, 

, 

 (1981); State v.
  Ohler, 

, 

 (1981); State v. Morgan, 

, 

 (1980); State v. French, 

, 

 (1979); State v. Rathburn, 

, 

 (1976);
  State v. Van Ackeren, 

, 

 (1975); State v.
  Skonberg, 

, 

 (1975); State v. Holloway, 

, 

 (1971). See, also, In re Interest of Clinton G., 

, 

 (2003); In re Interest of Frederick C., 

, 

 (1999); State v. Tierney, 

,
  

 (1998); State v. Butzke, 

, 

  (1998).
9
  See, State v. Howell, 

, 

 (2019); State v.
  Zuniga, 

, 

 (2018); State v. Bond, 

, 

 (2016); State v. Turner, 

, 

 (2016).
                                  - 371 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                           STATE V. HAMMOND
                            Cite as 

prior opinions and the lower court opinions relying on them
to the extent that they set forth a different standard of review.
                          V. ANALYSIS
                     1. Motion to Suppress
   In her first assignment of error, Hammond claims that the
district court erred when it overruled her motion to suppress
the evidence obtained during the September 5, 2021, encoun-
ter. She primarily challenges two aspects of this encounter: the
initial search of her vehicle and the subsequent search of her
person, following her arrest. It is undisputed that the officers
conducted both searches without a warrant. The State main-
tains that the searches were reasonable, asserting that certain
warrantless search exceptions applied.
   Before addressing the parties’ specific arguments, we begin
by setting forth general legal principles. Then, we review the
district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Finally, we dis-
cuss the application of certain warrantless search exceptions to
these facts.
                    (a) General Legal Principles
   [5,6] Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution guarantee
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches with-
out a valid warrant are per se unreasonable, subject only
to a few specifically established and well-delineated excep-
tions. 10 The warrantless search exceptions Nebraska has rec-
ognized include: (1) searches undertaken with consent, (2)
searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory searches,
(4) searches of evidence in plain view, and (5) searches inci-
dent to a valid arrest. 11
   [7] It is the State’s burden to show that a search falls within
an exception to the warrant requirement. 12 Here, the State
10
   State v. Miller, 

, 

 (2022).
11
   

12
   

                                   - 372 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. HAMMOND
                             Cite as 

relies on two exceptions to justify the reasonableness of the
searches, arguing that (1) the consent exception permitted the
initial search of Hammond’s vehicle and (2) the search incident
to a valid arrest exception justified the subsequent search of
Hammond’s person. We will discuss these exceptions in more
detail below.
                       (b) Historical Facts
   At this point, our standard of review would require that we
review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. 13
However, Hammond conceded at oral argument that she does
not challenge the court’s findings of historical fact, and we
agree that they are supported by the record and not clearly
erroneous. Therefore, we turn to the ultimate question: whether
these facts established compliance with Fourth Amendment
protections as a matter of law.
                (c) Resolving Alleged Fourth
                    Amendment Violations
   Based on the historical facts, the district court reached a
conclusion of law that there was no Fourth Amendment vio-
lation for two reasons. It concluded that (1) the search of
Hammond’s vehicle was undertaken with consent and (2) the
search of her person occurred incident to a valid arrest. We
address the application of these exceptions to the facts and
reach an independent conclusion. 14
                     (i) Consent Exception
  [8-11] We first address the State’s consent argument.
Generally, to be effective under the Fourth Amendment, con-
sent to a search must be a free and unconstrained choice, and
not the product of a will overborne. 15 Consent must be given
voluntarily and not as a result of duress or coercion, whether
13
   See State v. Garcia, supra note 4.
14
   See id.
15
   State v. 

.
                                    - 373 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     315 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. HAMMOND
                             Cite as 

express, implied, physical, or psychological. 16 The determina-
tion of whether the facts and circumstances constitute a volun-
tary consent to a search, satisfying the Fourth Amendment, is
a question of law. 17 Whether consent to a search was voluntary
is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances sur-
rounding the giving of consent. 18
   On appeal, Hammond contends that her purported consent
was invalid for two primary reasons. She argues that there
was “implied coercion” and that her statement in response to
Jordan’s request to look in her vehicle was “ambiguous.” 19 We
are not persuaded.
   Hammond’s sole authority on this issue is our prior deci-
sion in State v. Tucker. 20 In that case, she points out, we said
that “[m]ere submission to authority is insufficient to establish
consent to a search.” 21 However, she points to nothing in the
record to show mere submission in this case.
   Here, Jordan asked whether Hammond would mind if “‘we
look’” in her vehicle, and she responded, “‘If you absolutely
need to . . . .’” He then asked a second time to “‘take a look,’”
to which Hammond responded, “‘If you really need to go look,
more power to you.’” The record shows that while the officers
prepared to search her vehicle, Hammond asked if they would
retrieve her cigarettes from the vehicle, and Jordan responded,
“‘Absolutely.’” Hammond then “stood by the vehicle and
made a call on her cell phone.”
   These facts show that Jordan did not use coercion when
he asked to look in the vehicle. We agree with the State that
the video of the encounter did not show any threatening ges-
tures or a threatening tone of voice. Rather, the conversation
16
   

17
   

18
   

19
   Brief for appellant at 7.
20
   State v. 

.
21
   Brief for appellant at 7.
                                     - 374 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       315 Nebraska Reports
                              STATE V. HAMMOND
                               Cite as 

between Jordan and Hammond was casual and cordial
throughout the encounter. Moreover, Jordan gave Hammond
the opportunity to refuse consent, but she allowed the search
to proceed without hesitation or protest. On these facts, we
conclude that Hammond’s will was not overborne and that she
did not merely acquiesce to coercion. We therefore reject her
implied coercion argument.
   [12,13] We now turn to Hammond’s argument that her
response was ambiguous. This argument seems to overlook our
statement in Tucker that recitation of magic words is unneces-
sary to give consent to a search. The key inquiry focuses on
what the typical reasonable person would have understood
by the exchange between the officer and the suspect. 22 And,
as the State correctly points out, our subsequent cases have
stated that consent to search may be implied by action rather
than words. 23
   Based upon the district court’s findings of fact and our
review of the record, we reach an independent legal conclu-
sion that the search of Hammond’s vehicle was undertaken
with consent. As noted above, the officers’ body cameras
recorded the encounter, and the district court received the
recordings as evidence. The body camera video shows that,
22
     State v. 

.
23
     State v. 

, 

, 

 (holding
     that search of defendant’s glove was undertaken with consent when
     police officer “‘simply asked’” for glove, and defendant “‘gave’” it to
     him); State v. Modlin, 

, 

 (2015) (noting that
     defendant allowed phlebotomist to draw his blood without doing anything
     to manifest refusal). See, also, State v. 

 (noting that
     after request to search his home, defendant responded by stepping back
     and gesturing with his arms raised and his hands outward and upward);
     State v. Juhl, 

, 

 (1989) (holding that
     defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was not
     violated when, in response to question from police officer as to what he
     had in his jacket’s pocket, defendant raised his right arm and responded,
     “‘[C]heck’”), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Messersmith, 

, 

 (1991).
                                   - 375 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. HAMMOND
                             Cite as 

in addition to her statement, Hammond made a hand gesture
toward her vehicle. She then stood nearby and had a conver-
sation on her cell phone, without doing anything to manifest
her refusal, as the officers conducted a thorough search of
her vehicle. Consent may be implied from such actions. We
therefore reject her ambiguity argument and conclude that the
search of her vehicle was undertaken with consent.
   For completeness, we briefly address two other matters. Part
of Hammond’s consent argument seems to suggest that Jordan
had a duty to expressly inform her of her right to refuse con-
sent. We disagree.
   [14] While there is no requirement that police must always
inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permis-
sion to conduct a warrantless consent search, knowledge of
the right to refuse is a factor to be considered in the volun-
tariness analysis. 24 Here, to the extent that Hammond perhaps
relies upon this principle, she fails to point to anything in our
record to show that she did not have knowledge of the right to
refuse consent.
   Additionally, Hammond asserted, for the first time at oral
argument, that her interaction with Jordan leading up to the
search of her vehicle constituted a “second-tier” encounter.
Based on the principles underlying such an argument, she
seemed to suggest that the encounter constituted a seizure
under the Fourth Amendment. 25 There are at least two prob-
lems with this argument.
   [15,16] Generally, when an issue is raised for the first time
in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a
24
   State v. Degarmo, 

, 

 (2020) (citing United
   States v. Drayton, 

, 

, 

   (2002)).
25
   See State v. Drake, 

, 

, 770 (2022) (“‘[t]he
   second tier, the investigatory stop . . . is limited to brief, nonintrusive
   detention during a frisk for weapons or preliminary questioning’” and “‘is
   considered a seizure sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment safeguards’”).
                                 - 376 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                          STATE V. HAMMOND
                           Cite as 

lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never
presented and submitted to it for disposition. 26 Further, an
alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifi-
cally argued in the brief of the party asserting the error to be
considered by an appellate court. 27 Because Hammond did not
raise this argument in her motion to suppress or her appellate
brief, we do not address it.
                      (ii) Search Incident to
                      Valid Arrest Exception
   We next address the State’s search incident to a valid arrest
argument. The State contends that this exception applied to
the search of Hammond’s person, because, it asserts, probable
cause existed to arrest her for possession of a controlled sub-
stance. We agree.
   [17-19] Probable cause, standing alone, is not an excep-
tion that justifies the search of a person without a warrant. 28
However, under Nebraska law, a person may be arrested with-
out a warrant when an officer has probable cause to believe
the person either has committed a felony or has committed a
misdemeanor in the officer’s presence. 29 An appellate court
determines whether probable cause existed under an objec-
tive standard of reasonableness, given the known facts and
circumstances, but appellate courts should avoid an exces-
sively technical dissection of the factors supporting prob-
able cause. 30
   On appeal, Hammond maintains that the officers did not
have probable cause to arrest her for the crime of possessing
a controlled substance, after discovering the white crystalline
26
   State v. Johnson, 

, 

 (2023).
27
   State v. Fernandez, 

, 

 (2023).
28
   State v. 

.
29
   State v. Perry, 

, 

 (2016).
30
   State v. Seckinger, 

, 

 (2018).
                                - 377 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                         STATE V. HAMMOND
                          Cite as 

substance in her vehicle, and that the subsequent search of her
person was unlawful. She asserts that Jordan did not testify
as to any specifics that led him to believe this white crystal-
line substance was a controlled substance and that “Jordan did
not conduct a field test for this substance until he returned to
the police station, after he had already arrested [Hammond],
searched her person, and taken her to jail.” 31
   [20-22] But the concept of probable cause, as the name
implies, is based on probabilities. It requires only a probability
or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual show-
ing of such activity. 32 In other words, to find probable cause,
officers are not required to rule out all innocent explanations
for suspicious facts. 33 Probable cause may be based on com-
monsense conclusions about human behavior, and due weight
should be given to inferences by law enforcement officers
based on their experience and specialized training. 34
   Here, the known facts and circumstances show that it was
reasonable for the officers to believe that probable cause
existed to arrest Hammond. Two historical facts are par-
ticularly relevant. First, based on his specialized training and
experience, Jordan determined from the field sobriety maneu-
vers that Hammond “did not appear to be under the influence
of alcohol, however, she did show signs consistent of being
under the influence of a CNS stimulant (like methamphet-
amine).” Second, during the search of Hammond’s vehicle,
Najera located a “folded up” receipt “stuffed in the steer-
ing wheel cover that contained a white crystalline substance
that he recognized through training and experience as pos-
sible methamphetamine.” As noted above, these facts are not
in dispute.
31
   Brief for appellant at 9.
32
   State v. 

.
33
   

34
   State v. McGovern, 

, 

 (2022), cert. denied
   ___ U.S. ___, 

, 

.
                              - 378 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. HAMMOND
                        Cite as 

   Based on the totality of the circumstances, these facts estab-
lish probable cause to believe that Hammond had committed
a felony—specifically, possession of methamphetamine—in
the officers’ presence. We therefore conclude that probable
cause existed to arrest her and that the subsequent search of
her person occurred incident to a valid arrest. This argument
lacks merit.
             2. Remaining Assignments of Error
   Hammond derivatively assigns that the district court erred
in overruling her renewed objections to the evidence presented
at trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support her
convictions. She appears to concede that these assignments are
premised on her motion to suppress assignment.
   Because Hammond’s premise fails, so do these claims. We
have already determined that the court did not err in overruling
the motion to suppress. It follows that it did not err in over-
ruling Hammond’s renewed objections, which were premised
on her arguments in the motion to suppress. And because the
court did not err in admitting the evidence, we cannot say
that the evidence—which included methamphetamine and drug
paraphernalia—was insufficient to support her convictions for
possession of those items.
                       VI. CONCLUSION
   Because the search of Hammond’s vehicle was undertaken
with consent, and because the subsequent search of her person
occurred incident to a valid arrest, we conclude that the dis-
trict court did not err when it overruled Hammond’s motion to
suppress the evidence obtained as a result of those searches.
For that reason, Hammond’s remaining arguments, which are
premised on her motion to suppress, also fail. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment below.
                                                  Affirmed.
   Freudenberg, J., not participating.