Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. In
an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the
district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and
its review is limited to an examination of the record for
error or abuse of discretion.
Courts: Appeal and Error. Both the district
court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals
from the county court for error appearing on the record.
Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing
a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate
court's inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the
law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither
arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
Search and Seizure. Application of the good
faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a question of
Judgments: Appeal and Error. On a question
of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent
of the court below.
Criminal Law: Statutes: Appeal and Error.
Absent specific statutory authorization, the State generally
has no right to appeal an adverse ruling in a criminal case.
Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure:
Evidence. The exclusionary rule is a judicially
created remedy that generally prohibits the use of evidence
obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment
Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs:
Intent. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to
deter police misconduct.
Courts: Search and Seizure. Because the
exclusionary rule should not be applied to objectively
reasonable law enforcement activity, the U.S. Supreme Court
created a good faith exception to the rule.
Constitutional Law: Courts: Search and Seizure:
Police Officers and Sheriffs: Evidence. A court may
decline to apply the exclusionary [300 Neb. 153]rule when
evidence is obtained pursuant to an officer's objectively
reasonable reliance on a law that is not clearly
unconstitutional at the time.
Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Where
an exception proceeding is brought from the district court
sitting as an appellate court, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316
(Reissue 2016) does not limit the relief the higher appellate
court can order, because the defendant was not placed legally
in jeopardy in the district court.
from the District Court for Gage County, Paul W. Korslund,
Judge, Retired, on appeal thereto from the County Court for
Gage County, Steven B. Timm, Judge. Exception sustained, and
cause remanded for further proceedings.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for
J. Mercure, of Nestor & Mercure, and Lindy L. Mahoney,
Senior Certified Law Student, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.
intermediate appeal from county court, the district court
vacated Steven J. Hatfield's conviction for driving under
the influence (DUI) and granted him a new trial after
determining that his warrantless blood draw was unlawful and
inadmissible in light of Birchfield v. North
Dakota Because we determine that the good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule applies, we sustain the
State's exception. And because we are not prevented from
affecting the district court's ...