then properly extended his search to include places that could conceal drugs as well as weapons. Consent. We are cognizant that Kinney devoted a portion of his brief to a discussion of whether he voluntarily consented to the search. See State v. Ready, 252 Neb. 816, 565 N.W.2d 728 (1997) (discussing requirements necessary for determination of whether consent was voluntary). However, in the present case, the trial court did not base its decision on the voluntariness of Kinney’s consent, and the State does not argue that Kinney consented. Moreover, because we have already determined that the search was not unreasonable based upon Stanczyk’s reasonable, articulable belief that he might be in danger, we need not address this argument. See Kelly v. Kelly, 246 Neb. 55, 516 N.W.2d 612 (1994) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Upon our de novo review, we
holding that the abuse of discretion standard does not prevent an appellate court from conducting a meaningful analysis holding continuing controversy not moot holding that if a declaratory judgment will not end the controversy it is not proper holding appellate court is not obligated to engage in analysis not needed to adjudicate controversy holding that the state court may adjudicate the applicability of a bankruptcy injunction to state court litigation