State v. Albarenga
982 N.W.2d 799
Neb.2022Background
- On June 28, 2019, Lincoln officer observed Seidy Albarenga stop at an intersection controlled by a steady red left-arrow signal and then turn left while the red arrow remained lit; officer stopped her and later obtained a .142 breath-alcohol result.
- Albarenga was charged in county court under Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.12.030 (prohibiting turns on a steady red arrow) and with DUI; she stipulated to trial and was convicted of both offenses.
- She moved to quash the traffic-count and to suppress evidence, arguing Lincoln’s ordinance conflicted with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,123(3)(c) of the Nebraska Rules of the Road (which permits a cautious left turn on a steady red indication at two one-way streets after stopping).
- County court and the district court upheld the ordinance; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed those decisions after consulting the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review, held the municipal ordinance preempted by § 60-6,123(3)(c), reversed the traffic-signal conviction, but affirmed denial of the suppression motion because the officer reasonably relied on the then-enforceable ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.12.030 (ban on left turns on steady red arrow) is preempted by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,123(3)(c) | § 60-6,123(3)(c) permits a cautious left on a steady red indication at two one-way streets, so the city ordinance (which forbids the turn) conflicts and is preempted | City argues § 10.12.030 is consistent because a local “traffic control device” or sign can prohibit the turn | Court held the ordinance is preempted: § 60-6,123’s “steady red indication” includes lighted arrows and authorizes left turns after stopping; a local ordinance cannot override that rule |
| Whether the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices can create ambiguity or override § 60-6,123 | N/A (Court of Appeals relied on Manual to interpret signals) | State argued Manual and agency rules should inform interpretation and permit local restriction via "device in place" | Court held the Manual/regulations cannot be read in pari materia to statutes enacted by the Legislature and cannot create ambiguity where the statute is clear |
| Whether evidence from the stop should be suppressed because the stop relied on a preempted ordinance | §10.12.030 was invalid, so the stop was unlawful and its fruits must be excluded | Even if §10.12.030 is preempted, the officer reasonably relied on an existing municipal ordinance; officers need not be legal scholars and may rely on presumptively valid local laws | Court held exclusion not warranted: officer’s reliance on the then-valid municipal ordinance was objectively reasonable, so suppression was not required |
| Remedy for the traffic-conviction | N/A | N/A | Court directed reversal of conviction under §10.12.030, remand to vacate and dismiss that charge; DUI conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe, 302 Neb. 968, 926 N.W.2d 441 (discussing de novo review of ordinance interpretation)
- Butler County Dairy v. Butler County, 285 Neb. 408, 827 N.W.2d 267 (framework for express preemption analysis)
- Malone v. City of Omaha, 294 Neb. 516, 883 N.W.2d 320 (municipal ordinances subordinate to state law; scope of local authority)
- Ameritas Life Ins. v. Balka, 257 Neb. 878, 601 N.W.2d 508 (rules on resort to administrative construction when statute is clear)
- State v. Barbeau, 301 Neb. 293, 917 N.W.2d 913 (Fourth Amendment and standards for stops)