State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822

Background

Late-night traffic stop of Jamos M. Jasa after Lincoln Fire & Rescue reported a vehicle "all over the road;" officers observed the pickup weaving and (per officer testimony) at one point crossing the lane line with driver-side tires.
Officers performed field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test; Jasa was arrested for DUI and taken to the county jail for a certified chemical breath test that later read .191 BAC.
Officer Morrow conducted a 15-minute observation of Jasa before the breath test; Officer Sears (the permit holder) administered the test and Attachment 16 (the title 177 checklist) was completed indicating all tasks were done.
After the test, officers advised Jasa of his right to independent testing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,199 and told him he could use the jail telephone to arrange it; Jasa made numerous calls in jail but did not arrange a timely independent blood test.
Jasa moved to suppress the breath-test result arguing (1) the stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause, (2) the 15-minute observation required by title 177 was not properly executed, and (3) his statutory right to independent testing under § 60-6,199 was violated. The district court denied suppression; Jasa was convicted and appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Jasa's Argument	Held
Legality of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion/probable cause)	Officers had reasonable suspicion from LFR tip plus observed weaving and lane crossing; even a minor traffic violation supplies probable cause	No traffic violation occurred under Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.14.110 (argues tires did not straddle lane as required)	Stop was justified: officer testimony and video support observation of weaving/lane crossing; probable cause existed for stop
15-minute observation under title 177 (foundation for breath test)	Attachment 16 was completed and all checklist items (including 15-min observation) were performed; different officers may divide tasks	Sears (test administrator) did not personally observe the 15-minute period and did not discuss Morrow’s observations with him, so the method was not followed	Admissible: competent evidence showed the checklist tasks were performed; district court did not err in admitting the result
Statutory right to independent testing (§ 60-6,199)	Officers informed Jasa of right and allowed telephone access; police are not required to procure or transport independent testing	Officers failed to assist in arranging independent testing and effectively prevented timely testing, violating § 60-6,199	No violation: under State v. Dake, police must not hamper efforts and must allow telephone access but have no duty to arrange or provide the independent test; officers satisfied § 60-6,199
Overall admissibility of breath-test result	Foundation satisfied (device, permit, proper conduct, statutory compliance)	Breath result should be suppressed due to defective observation procedure and § 60-6,199 violation	Breath-test admitted; suppression was not required and conviction stands

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (appellate review standard for suppression: factual findings for clear error; constitutional questions de novo)
State v. McIntyre, 290 Neb. 1021 (statutory/regulatory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144 (Fourth Amendment protection and standard for investigatory stops)
State v. Sanders, 289 Neb. 335 (traffic violation, even minor, supplies probable cause to stop)
State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968 (foundational elements for admitting breath-test evidence)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274 (distinguishing method vs technique in prior regulatory context)
State v. Dake, 247 Neb. 579 (police not required to transport or procure independent testing; must not hamper and must allow telephone calls)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (courts should not read statutory meaning beyond plain language)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (statutory language given plain meaning)
State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738 (appellate courts do not look beyond unambiguous statutory text)
State v. Dean, 270 Neb. 972 (appellate review confined to issues raised and determined below)