State v. Alkazahy, 314 Neb. 406

On June 5, 2020, Munif J. Alkazahy failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle; a passenger suffered serious injury.
Deputy Lance Johnson detected alcohol, Alkazahy admitted drinking, a preliminary breath test read .129, and Alkazahy was arrested for DUI.
At a detox center, after a 17-minute observation, Johnson administered an evidentiary DataMaster breath test (DataMaster serial no. 300401) showing .118.
Alkazahy moved to suppress the DataMaster result, arguing the device’s conformance testing used dry gas standards not listed on NHTSA’s Conforming Products List and thus did not comply with DHHS methods/regulations.
Evidence showed maintenance officer Grant Powell performed calibration checks (April 2018, May 13, 2020, June 17, 2020) that passed within ±5%; NHTSA letters confirmed the standards met model specifications though they were not yet on the published list.
The district court denied suppression (treating the issue as a technique, not method), convicted Alkazahy after a bench trial, and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment, 18 months’ post-release supervision, and 8 years’ license revocation; Alkazahy appealed suppression and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alkazahy)	Held
Whether breath test results were inadmissible because calibration used dry gas standards not on NHTSA Conforming Products List, violating DHHS-approved methods	The DataMaster method (infrared analysis) was DHHS‑approved, the device was properly calibrated with standards that met NHTSA model specs, and any deviation was a technique issue affecting weight, not admissibility	Failure to use an NHTSA‑listed standard relates to the scientific method and rendered the test noncompliant and inadmissible	Court held the method used was DHHS‑approved, the standards met NHTSA requirements (though not listed), the deficiency was a technique, and results were admissible
Whether the 18‑month sentence was excessive / denial of probation	State emphasized presentence report "red flags," public safety risk, and recommended incarceration	Alkazahy sought probation or house arrest, argued the court focused only on the offense and ignored mitigating personal factors	Court found sentence within statutory limits, considered statutory factors and defendant’s recidivism risk, and did not abuse its discretion

State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822, 901 N.W.2d 315 (2017) (articulates four foundational elements for admissibility of breath tests)
State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. 96, 784 N.W.2d 873 (2010) (distinguishes methods from techniques; technique defects generally affect weight, not admissibility)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274, 328 N.W.2d 769 (1983) (procedural or container defects unrelated to an approved laboratory method do not make results inadmissible)
State v. Rodriguez, 18 Neb. App. 104, 774 N.W.2d 775 (2009) (Court of Appeals treated administrative/checklist deficiencies as technique)
State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019) (standard for review of within‑range sentence: abuse of discretion)
State v. Starks, 308 Neb. 527, 955 N.W.2d 313 (2021) (defines abuse of discretion in sentencing review)