State v. Hedgcock
277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-coercive police encounter with a driver who voluntarily stops their vehicle in a public place after observing ruse drug checkpoint signs does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Consent to search given during such a voluntary encounter is valid if the totality of the circumstances indicates it was not coerced by the police deception.
Facts:
- The Nebraska State Patrol placed signs along Interstate 80 reading 'Nebraska State Patrol Check Point Ahead' and 'Drug Dog in Use.'
- These signs were a ruse, as no actual checkpoint existed; their purpose was to induce motorists engaged in illegal activity to exit into the Platte River rest area.
- Parry Hedgcock, driving a Chevrolet Blazer, saw the signs and made a rapid lane change to enter the rest area.
- Hedgcock parked his vehicle away from the main building, and he and his passenger, Anthony Womack, remained in the vehicle for approximately two minutes before exiting.
- Womack walked to the restrooms while Hedgcock stayed near the Blazer.
- Plainclothes officers, who had concealed their weapons, observed this behavior and approached Hedgcock.
- Officer Lutter identified himself, told Hedgcock he was not under arrest or in any trouble, and asked in a conversational tone if Hedgcock would speak with him, to which Hedgcock agreed.
- After a brief conversation, Hedgcock consented to a search of his vehicle, which led to the discovery of marijuana and Hedgcock's confession.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Nebraska charged Parry Hedgcock in district court with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Hedgcock filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, arguing the encounter was an unconstitutional seizure.
- The district court (trial court) denied the motion to suppress, concluding the interaction was a voluntary, tier-one encounter not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- Following a trial, Hedgcock was convicted of the charges.
- Hedgcock (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a voluntary, non-coercive police encounter with a driver who pulls into a rest area on their own accord after seeing ruse drug checkpoint signs constitute an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - McCormack, J.
No, a voluntary, non-coercive police encounter with a driver who pulls into a rest area on their own accord after seeing ruse drug checkpoint signs does not constitute an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment. This interaction qualifies as a tier-one police-citizen encounter, which involves voluntary cooperation through noncoercive questioning and does not implicate Fourth Amendment protections. The court reasoned that Hedgcock was not seized because he stopped his vehicle on his own volition, not due to a police show of authority. There was no actual checkpoint, as vehicles were not being stopped. The subsequent interaction with Officer Lutter was consensual because a reasonable person would have felt free to leave; the officers were in plain clothes, did not display weapons, did not use a compelling tone, and immediately informed Hedgcock he was not in trouble. The deception of the ruse signs was not coercive and therefore did not invalidate Hedgcock's voluntary consent to the search.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the constitutional limits of using ruse checkpoints as a law enforcement tactic. It establishes that such a tactic is permissible so long as it induces voluntary stops rather than compelling them through an actual show of authority. The case distinguishes between an individual choosing to exit a highway and police physically stopping a vehicle, placing the former outside the scope of a Fourth Amendment seizure. This provides law enforcement with a blueprint for initiating consensual encounters based on suspicious behavior prompted by the ruse, while reinforcing that the voluntariness of any subsequent consent is paramount and subject to a totality of the circumstances review.
