DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.

191054P.pdf   12/18/2020  Timothy Cronin  v.  Chris Peterson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-1054
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln   
[PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging police officer had unlawfully detained plaintiff, that a police captain and a legal advisor had omitted material facts from a warrant application and that another officer had searched plaintiff's wife's car without a warrant, all in violation of plaintiff's civil rights, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. Held: the facts, as alleged in plaintiff's complaint did not establish that defendant police sergeant Kopeke lacked sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion that plaintiff might be involved in criminal activity, and plaintiff's initial detention was not unconstitutional and Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity; the length of plaintiff's detention was not unreasonable under the circumstances and Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the length of the detention turned into an unconstitutional de facto arrest; the inclusion of facts plaintiff claims were improperly omitted from the warrant applications would not have negated the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants; subsequent warrant and warrant extension affidavits established probable cause to search defendant's phone for incriminating texts and voice mails, and the material plaintiff asserts was improperly omitted would not have negated the existence of probable cause; search of plaintiff's wife's car, which had been omitted from the warrant application, was authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and the officer who conducted the search was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's unlawful warrant-execution claim.