## Facts

- Fremont, Nebraska police sought and obtained a warrant to search Randall Utterback’s home.
- The supporting affidavit relied primarily on information from a confidential informant described as unpaid and not a habitual informant.
- The informant told police he had purchased marijuana from Utterback within the prior six months and, during a recent visit to Utterback’s home, saw a large amount of marijuana, smaller amounts of other controlled substances, and two loaded automatic weapons he believed were an AK-47 and an Uzi.
- Police corroborated only limited background details (including that Utterback lived at the address described and related vehicle/utility information).
- Officers executed the warrant and seized approximately 570 grams of marijuana and related items.
- The State charged Utterback with possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture, distribute, deliver, or dispense.
- Utterback moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit did not adequately show the informant’s credibility and omitted information bearing on that credibility.
- The trial court denied suppression; Utterback was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment (and also sought probation).
- Utterback appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause when it relied on a confidential informant but did not provide sufficient facts to show the informant’s credibility or veracity, and police corroboration largely confirmed only innocent details.
2. If probable cause was lacking, whether the evidence was nonetheless admissible under the *United States v. Leon* good-faith exception, or whether suppression was required because the issuing magistrate was misled by material omissions in the affidavit.
3. Whether the sentencing court erred in declining to place Utterback on probation (if the conviction remained valid).

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court held the search warrant was invalid because the affidavit did not establish probable cause.
- The court concluded the affidavit’s showing of the confidential informant’s credibility was inadequate, and the officer’s corroboration did not meaningfully verify criminal activity.
- The court further concluded material omissions about the informant affected the magistrate’s probable-cause determination.
- The court rejected the State’s reliance on the *Leon* good-faith exception because officers cannot claim objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued on the basis of an incomplete or misleading affidavit that misleads the magistrate.
- The court reversed Utterback’s conviction and remanded with directions to vacate the conviction and dismiss the charges; the probation issue was therefore not dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a suppression ruling, an appellate court gives deference to the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly wrong, while independently reviewing the legal question of whether the Fourth Amendment (and state analog) was satisfied.
- A search warrant must be supported by an affidavit establishing probable cause based on articulable facts.
- When probable cause is based on a confidential informant, the affidavit must (1) state facts showing the basis of the informant’s knowledge and (2) establish the informant’s credibility, either from the informant’s track record or through meaningful independent police corroboration.
- Corroboration of neutral facts (such as residence, utilities, or a vehicle) generally does not, by itself, support an informant’s reliability as to alleged criminal conduct.
- Evidence obtained under an invalid warrant is subject to suppression.
- The *Leon* good-faith exception does not prevent suppression when the issuing magistrate was misled by material omissions or materially incomplete information in the warrant application.

## Conclusion

State v. Utterback, 485 N.W.2d 760 (1992) is a Nebraska Supreme Court decision reversing a drug conviction after holding that an informant-based warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that suppression was required because the warrant application materially misled the issuing magistrate, making the *Leon* good-faith exception unavailable.
