Motion to suppress; issues of fact; trial.
Issues of fact arising on motions to suppress shall be tried by the court without a jury, in a summary manner, on affidavits or otherwise, as the court may direct. No evidence shall be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.
Source:Laws 1963, c. 155, § 2, p. 553.
Henceforth, trial courts shall articulate in writing or from the bench their general findings when denying or granting a motion to suppress. State v. Osborn, 250 Neb. 57, 547 N.W.2d 139 (1996).
An order not containing a provision that the authorization to intercept calls shall be conducted in such a way so as to avoid and prevent interception of confidential information is not per se invalid absent a showing that any substantial right of the defendant has been violated. State v. Brennen, 214 Neb. 734, 336 N.W.2d 79 (1983).
Applications for successive wiretaps which failed to disclose earlier applications are technical irregularities only, not affecting substantial rights of the accused. State v. Kohout, 198 Neb. 90, 251 N.W.2d 723 (1977).
Evidence should not be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused. State v. Putnam, 178 Neb. 445, 133 N.W.2d 605 (1965).