Can Senator Cavanaugh Actually Face Criminal Charges for Removing Capitol Displays in Nebraska?
Key Takeaways:
The incident: Public reporting says Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh removed PragerU-related display items from a Capitol hallway and moved them to her office, and a criminal investigation is now underway.
The likely statutes: Theft by unlawful taking (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511), criminal mischief (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-519), and potentially disturbing the peace (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1322).
Where these cases usually win or lose: Theft turns on “intent to deprive,” and Nebraska defines “deprive” in a way that strongly rewards precision about whether the alleged deprivation was permanent, extended, or created a substantial risk of non-recovery.
The mischief pressure point: “Tampering” is defined broadly, but the statute still requires that the tampering be “so as to endanger person or property,” which is often a steep hill when the allegation is simply moving intact items.
Practical reality: Even when conduct looks inappropriate, prosecutors still have to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, and close-call element issues often drive outcomes.
In mid-January 2026, Governor Jim Pillen requested a criminal investigation after State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh removed framed images from a PragerU-related America 250 display area at the Nebraska State Capitol and moved them to her office. Public reporting indicates the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office is reviewing video/audio and witness statements to determine whether any charge fits the facts.
Legally, “can someone be charged” is not the same question as “can the State prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In property cases, prosecutors live and die by statutory elements, especially intent and measurable harm. Here, the most-discussed statutes are theft by unlawful taking (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511) and criminal mischief (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-519), with “disturbing the peace” (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1322) sometimes considered when a more specific property theory does not fit cleanly.
Based on the facts as publicly reported so far, the toughest issues for any prosecutor are proof issues: proving an “intent to deprive” (as Nebraska defines it), and proving the kind of damage, endangerment, or pecuniary loss that supports criminal mischief. Those issues do not make charges impossible, but they do make the case legally uphill if the evidence continues to show quick recovery and no damage.
What happened, according to public reporting?
Public reporting describes an incident where Sen. Cavanaugh removed certain display items from the Capitol hallway near her office and moved them into her office, which led to a request for a criminal investigation and subsequent law enforcement review of evidence and interviews.
Those basic facts matter because Nebraska criminal statutes are element-driven. If the evidence shows the items were not damaged and were readily located and returned, that tends to weaken the cleanest charging pathways in typical “property crime” cases, even if it does not eliminate all possible theories.
Which Nebraska crimes are realistically in the conversation?
Theft by unlawful taking, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511
Section 28-511 makes a person guilty of theft if the person takes, or exercises control over, movable property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of it. In other words, it is not just the movement of property that matters, it is what the State can prove about intent.
Criminal mischief, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-519
Section 28-519 covers damaging property, tampering with property so as to endanger person or property, or causing pecuniary loss by deception or threat. The statute also defines “tamper,” which is broad, but still pairs “tamper” with a separate endangerment requirement in the criminal mischief elements.
Disturbing the peace, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1322
Sheriff statements reported by Nebraska outlets indicate investigators are also looking at whether “disturbing the peace” could apply, which is a lower-level, more general offense than theft or criminal mischief. The statute criminalizes intentionally disturbing the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood.
How Nebraska theft law applies to “temporary removal”
A lot of public commentary treats theft like a simple possession question: if you moved it, you stole it. Nebraska law is more exacting than that.
Section 28-511 requires “intent to deprive.” Nebraska then defines “deprive” in § 28-509, and that definition is where many close-call cases are decided. Under § 28-509, “deprive” includes withholding property permanently, or for so extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of its economic value, or withholding with intent to restore only upon payment of a reward or other compensation. It also includes disposing of the property in a way that creates a substantial risk the owner will not recover it in the condition it was when obtained.
That definition matters here because a defense lawyer’s natural pressure point is: “Where is the evidence this was permanent, extended, ransom-like, or created a substantial risk of non-recovery?” If the evidence ends up showing the items stayed inside the building, were not hidden in a meaningful way, and were recovered quickly, the State can still argue intent, but it usually needs more than “she moved them.” It typically needs something like concealment behavior, refusal to return after a demand, statements showing a plan to keep them, or conduct that created a meaningful risk the owner would not recover the items in the same condition.
This is why video and communications are so important in investigations like this. In a case where intent is the battleground, what the footage actually shows, and what was said before and after, often matters more than what anyone “assumes” the motivation was.
How Nebraska criminal mischief applies when there is no damage
Criminal mischief is often discussed as “vandalism,” but Nebraska’s statute has specific lanes. The statute says a person commits criminal mischief if the person damages property intentionally or recklessly, or intentionally tampers with property so as to endanger person or property, or intentionally or maliciously causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or threat.
Two points matter for statutory precision.
First, the statute defines “tamper” broadly: it includes interfering with, displacing, removing, damaging, disabling, destroying, setting fire to, impairing, or otherwise interfering with something without lawful authority or express permission. That is a wide definition, and in isolation it sounds like “moving something” could qualify.
Second, and more important, the criminal mischief elements do not stop at “tamper.” The statute requires tampering “so as to endanger person or property.” This endangerment requirement is the practical choke point in many cases where the allegation is a non-destructive relocation of property. Moving a framed image from a hallway to an office might be unauthorized, but unauthorized is not the same thing as endangering a person or property, and prosecutors still have to prove that endangerment element with evidence.
If there truly is no damage and no meaningful monetary loss, prosecutors also have fewer clean ways to present the case to a jury, because many criminal mischief prosecutions end up being supported by repair estimates, replacement costs, or other valuation evidence that makes “pecuniary loss” concrete. The statute’s grading structure reinforces how central pecuniary loss often becomes in practice.
What about “disturbing the peace” as a fallback?
Because theft and criminal mischief have strict element requirements, investigators sometimes consider broader offenses when a fact pattern feels like misconduct but does not neatly match a property statute.
Nebraska’s “disturbing the peace” statute makes it a Class III misdemeanor to intentionally disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family, or neighborhood. In practice, this can function as a catch-all theory when the State thinks something crossed a line, but the evidence is weak on theft intent or weak on damage, loss, or endangerment.
That said, “disturbing the peace” still requires proof of an intentional disturbance, and Nebraska appellate decisions have also placed constitutional guardrails around how the statute can be applied to speech. So it is not a blank check, even if it is often easier to conceptualize than property-theft intent.
So, could charges happen, and would they stick?
Charges are always legally possible when facts can be argued to fit a statute and prosecutors choose to file. The more serious question is what happens after filing, when the State has to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
If future evidence shows concealment, refusal to return after a clear demand, disposal that created a substantial risk of non-recovery, actual damage, or facts supporting endangerment, the analysis changes fast.
If the evidence continues to look like open conduct, quick recovery, and no damage, the State may still be able to file something, but it risks walking into court with the kinds of element problems that defense lawyers build entire strategies around.
Criminal prosecution and legislative discipline are separate tracks
A weak criminal case does not mean “no consequences.” Legislatures, employers, and institutions can impose internal discipline based on their own rules and processes. Criminal court is different: it is constrained by statutory elements, constitutional protections, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That distinction is not just academic. It is the difference between “this violated a rule” and “this is a provable crime.” In high-profile settings, those tracks can move in parallel and can also end in different outcomes.
What to do if you are accused of a property crime in Nebraska
If law enforcement contacts you about a property incident, assume that your statements, texts, and social media posts can become intent evidence. In theft cases especially, intent is often inferred from what you did after the fact, including whether you tried to explain, justify, or negotiate return conditions.
The smart move is to get legal advice early, so your response is built around the elements the State must prove, not the narrative the investigator hopes you will fill in for them. Early counsel can also help preserve favorable evidence, like full video context, before it gets clipped into something that only tells half the story.
FAQ
Is removing government property automatically a crime in Nebraska?
No. The State has to prove elements. For theft under § 28-511, the State must prove “intent to deprive,” and “deprive” has a specific definition in § 28-509 that focuses on permanent or extended withholding, ransom-like return conditions, or disposal creating a substantial risk of non-recovery in the same condition.
Can criminal mischief apply if nothing was damaged?
It is harder. Under § 28-519, criminal mischief can involve damaging property, or tampering “so as to endanger person or property,” or causing pecuniary loss by deception or threat. The statute’s definition of “tamper” is broad, but the endangerment requirement is often the real hurdle in non-damage scenarios.
Why does “intent to deprive” matter so much in Nebraska theft cases?
Because theft is not just “control,” it is control plus the required intent. Nebraska’s definition of “deprive” is where prosecutors and defense attorneys typically fight: permanent withholding, extended withholding that captures a major portion of economic value, ransom-style return, or disposal creating substantial non-recovery risk.
What evidence usually decides a close-call theft investigation?
In close cases, it often comes down to intent evidence: whether the item was concealed, whether there was a refusal to return after demand, whether the conduct created a substantial risk of non-recovery or changed condition, and what the full video and communications show about purpose and follow-through.
Is “disturbing the peace” a common fallback charge?
It can be considered when stricter property-crime elements are difficult to prove. The statute requires an intentional disturbance of the peace and quiet, and it is graded as a Class III misdemeanor.