Main Menu McGoughLawP.C., L.L.O.
Contact Our Firm:
402-614-8655
After Hours/Emergency:
402-660-6909
  • Nebraska’s Go-To Sex Crimes Defense Firm
  • Nebraska’s Go-To Drug Crimes Defense Firm
  • Nebraska’s Go-To Criminal Defense Firm

Consent and the reasonable expectation of privacy

Nebraskans have the right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures by government officials when they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."  According to article I, section 7, of the Nebraska State Constitution, persons are afforded protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government just as they are protected under federal Constitutional law. A search or seizure is unreasonable if it cannot be justified when the law is applied to the factual circumstances surrounding the event.

Generally, the police are required to obtain a warrant if they wish to search private property. Whether the place to be searched is private under the law law is determined, in part, by whether a personal actually believes the place private. This is not the end of the inquiry, however. Once established, a person's expectation of privacy must be reasonable as measured by society's expectations. This means that society must be "prepared to recognize" a person's actual expectation of privacy as "acceptable."

Typically, when persons consent to the request of government officials to search, they will not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the right is deemed to be waived. A noteworthy exception from a 2012 Nebraska Supreme Court decisions stands out.  

In 2010, during a response to a complaint of unlawful firework use, Omaha police officers searched a nearby vehicle. They subsequently issued a citation to a minor, Ashley, for marijuana possession. The officers stated that they discovered a small amount of marijuana after she gave them consent to search. However, the Nebraska Supreme Court disagreed. The Court determined consent had not been given by Ashley because her consent actually constituted a "mere submission or resignation to police authority." The Court found that the Omaha police officers had no right to stop the vehicle because there was no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing in connection with the fireworks complaint. It unlawful for the police officers to attempt to justify an unrelated search by show of authority when there was no actual connection to the place to be searched.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • BBB Accredited Business
  • 10 Best 2016 Client Satisfaction American Institute Of Criminal Law Attorneys

Back To Top

Success Stories

  • Defendant was charged with sexual assault of a minor. At the deposition of the alleged victim, our firm got the alleged victim to confess that she made the whole thing up. Charges were dropped against our client.
  • Defendant was charged with possessing a large quantity of marijuana. Following a complete investigation by our firm, the State agreed to dismiss all charges against our client.
  • Defendant was charged with embezzling more than $300,000.00, from a previous employer. At the deposition of the alleged victim, our firm highlighted a number of inconsistencies and questionable statements. The State agreed to dismiss all charges against our client.
  • Defendant was charged with child abuse resulting in death. Following the investigation of our firm, depositions of key witnesses and presentation of our findings to the prosecutor, the State agreed to dismiss the charges against our client.
  • Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The matter proceeded to trial and the jury found our client Not Guilty.

What Our Clients Say About Us

  • “Jim, Thank you for all of your help over the past couple weeks. I cannot emphasize enough how much better I have felt after receiving your help. Keeping my record clean as possible means a lot to me and I couldn’t have done it without you, thank you!” -TP
  • “Jim, It's always a pleasure to see you in court. Your effective, professional representation of your clients is so helpful.” -LW
  • “Jim, On behalf of the V family, please allow me to offer a HUGE thank you for your exemplary legal representation - especially considering you took on this case a mere 5 months ago. ” -CV
  • “Thank you so much Jim for everything you have been doing on my case, you are greatly appreciated. I will contact you if anything else comes up//until then God bless you! ” -SH
  • “Jim, thank you for everything. After I was resentenced I became eligible for camp custody. I am now on the RDAP list and doing fine” -MH
  • “JThank you so much for writing back. I read your response and I want you to know I completely trust you” -KV