1. Constitutional Law: Search and
Seizure: Motions to Suppress: Appeal and Error.
reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress
based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an
appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.
Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the
trial court's findings for clear error, but whether those
facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a
question of law that an appellate court reviews independently
of the trial court's determination.
Administrative Law: Statutes: Appeal and
Error. The meaning and interpretation of statutes
and regulations are questions of law which an appellate court
resolves independently of the lower court's conclusion.
Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Investigative
Stops: Arrests: Probable Cause. The Fourth Amendment
guarantees the right to be free of unreasonable search and
seizure. This guarantee requires that an arrest be based on
probable cause and limits investigatory stops to those made
upon an articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
Criminal Law: Investigative Stops: Motor Vehicles:
Police Officers and Sheriffs. A traffic stop
requires only that the stopping officer have specific and
articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable
suspicion that a person has committed or is committing a
Investigative Stops: Motor Vehicles: Police Officers
and Sheriffs: Probable Cause. If an officer has
probable cause to stop a traffic violator, the stop is
__:__:__:__.A traffic violation, no matter how minor, creates
probable cause to stop the driver of a vehicle.
Judgments: Appeal and Error. Where the
record adequately demonstrates that the decision of a trial
court is correct-although such [297 Neb. 823] correctness is
based on a ground or reason different from that assigned by
the trial court-an appellate court will affirm.
Blood, Breath, and Urine Tests: Drunk Driving:
Evidence: Proof. The four foundational elements
which the State must establish as a foundation for the
admissibility of a breath test in a driving under the
influence prosecution are as follows: (1) that the testing
device was working properly at the time of the testing, (2)
that the person administering the test was qualified and held
a valid permit, (3) that the test was properly conducted
under the methods stated by the Department of Health and
Human Services, and (4) that all other statutes were
Statutes. Statutory language is to be given
its plain and ordinary meaning.
Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Appeal and
Error. An appellate court will not look beyond a
statute to determine the legislative intent when the words
are plain, direct, or unambiguous.
Appeal and Error. In appellate proceedings,
the examination by the appellate court is confined to
questions which have been determined by the trial court.
from the District Court for Lancaster County: Susan I.
Strong, Judge. Affirmed.
Roth, of McHenry, Haszard, Roth, Hupp, Burkholder &
Blomenberg, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch,
and Funke, JJ.
a jury trial, Jamos M. Jasa appeals his conviction and
sentence for aggravated driving under the influence (DUI),
third offense, a Class IIIA felony under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§§ 60-6, 196 (Reissue 2010) and 60-6, 197.03(6)
(Cum. Supp. 2014). Jasa challenges the order of the district
court for Lancaster County that denied his motion to suppress
the [297 Neb. 824] results of a chemical breath test. We
conclude that the district court did not err in finding that
law enforcement (1) had reasonable suspicion to initiate a
traffic stop, (2) administered a 15-minute observation period
prior to the chemical breath test in accordance with title
177 of the Nebraska Administrative Code, and (3) complied
with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6, 199 (Reissue 2010) by
allowing access to a telephone to arrange independent
testing. Therefore, we affirm.
February 14, 2015, Jasa was the subject of a traffic stop,
which led to a DUI investigation and a chemical breath test
showing an alcohol concentration of . 191 grams of alcohol
per 210 liters of Jasa's breath. The State charged Jasa
pursuant to §§ 60-6, 196 and 60-6, 197.03(6) with
DUI, third offense, while having a breath alcohol
concentration of .15 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath, or more.
to trial, Jasa moved to suppress his chemical breath test
result on several grounds. In relevant part, he alleged (1)
that law enforcement officers lacked reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to stop his vehicle, making any evidence
obtained as a result of the stop inadmissible; (2) that the
chemical breath test was not conducted in compliance with
title 177 of the Nebraska Administrative Code, because law
enforcement officers failed to properly and continuously
monitor him for 15 minutes prior to the breath test; and (3)
that Jasa was prohibited from obtaining independent testing
of his alcohol concentration, which rendered his breath test
result inadmissible under § 60-6, 199.
hearing on Jasa's motion to suppress, the evidence
established that on February 14, 2015, shortly after
midnight, Officers Kenneth Morrow and Jonathan Sears of the
Lincoln Police Department were on patrol together when they
received a dispatch about a vehicle that was "all over
the road" at First and West O Streets in Lincoln,
Nebraska. The dispatch center received the initial report
from an employee [297 Neb. 825] of Lincoln Fire and Rescue
(LFR). The report originated from LFR "Engine 3, "
which is based at a firehouse near First and West O Streets.
and Sears arrived in the area within a few minutes. At
approximately Third and West O Streets, they saw a pickup
that matched the description ...