Appeal and Error. Where no timely statement
of errors is filed in an appeal from a county court to a
district court, appellate review is limited to plain error.
Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to
Suppress: Appeal and Error. In 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 the
Fourth Amendment protection is a question of law that an
appellate court reviews independently of the trial
Constitutional Law: Courts: Search and Seizure:
Police Officers and Sheriffs: Evidence. A court may
decline to apply the exclusionary rule when evidence is
obtained pursuant to an officer's objective and
reasonable reliance on a law that is not clearly
unconstitutional at the time.
Appeal and Error. An appellate court does
not consider errors which are argued but not assigned.
Search and Seizure: Proof. The State has the
burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.
from the District Court for Lancaster County, Andrew R.
Jacobsen, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for
Lancaster County, Timothy C. Phillips, Judge. Judgment of
District Court affirmed.
S. Berry, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant.
Neb. 89] Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A.
Liss for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ.
W. Nielsen was convicted for driving under the influence,
after having submitted to a pre-Birchfield blood
draw. Based upon the exclusionary rule's
good faith exception, the county court denied Nielsen's
motion to suppress. On appeal, the district court affirmed.
On appeal to this court, Nielsen contends that the exception
does not apply and that the State failed to raise the issue
in the county court. Because our holding in State v.
Hoerle controls and because the State
sufficiently raised the issue, the county court correctly
denied the motion and the district court properly affirmed.
Therefore, we also affirm.
December 17, 2015, a police officer conducted a traffic stop
and arrested Nielsen under suspicion of drunk driving.
Ultimately, the arresting officer took Nielsen to a hospital.
There, he read the "Post Arrest Chemical Test Advisement
Form" to Nielsen. Nielsen signed the form and agreed to
a blood draw.
upon the results of the blood test, the State charged Nielsen
in the county court with driving under the influence. Nielsen
moved to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic [301
Neb. 90] stop and warrantless ...