State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822

Shortly after midnight on Feb 14, 2015, Lincoln officers responded to a report from Lincoln Fire & Rescue that a pickup was "all over the road." Officers observed the pickup weaving and at least briefly crossing a lane line. The vehicle was stopped and Jamos M. Jasa identified as the driver.
Officers conducted field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test; Jasa was arrested for DUI and taken to the county jail, arriving at 1:04 a.m.
While one officer (Morrow) observed Jasa for 15 minutes prior to testing, another officer (Sears) administered the evidentiary breath test at 1:22 a.m.; the result was .191 BAC. Morrow completed the required Attachment 16 checklist and identified Sears as the permit holder.
Jasa twice requested a blood test while in custody; officers informed him he could arrange independent testing and would be allowed telephone access. He remained in custody because he was nonbondable and made many phone calls but did not arrange an immediate independent blood draw.
Jasa moved to suppress the breath-test result, arguing (1) the stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause, (2) the 15-minute observation requirement under 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 and the jury convicted him of aggravated DUI (third offense). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jasa)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Legality of traffic stop	LFR tip and officers' observations insufficient; no traffic violation under municipal code	Officers observed weaving and crossing lane line; any traffic violation supplies probable cause	Stop justified: officer testimony and video supported weaving/crossing; probable cause existed
15-minute observation under title 177	Sears did not personally observe 15 minutes; reliance on another officer’s observation failed to meet method requirements	Attachment 16 tasks were completed; one officer may observe while another administers test; checklist filled out	Admissible: State proved checklist tasks were satisfied; district court correctly admitted breath result
Right to independent testing (§ 60-6,199)	Officers should have done more than allow phone access (e.g., assist, transport); jail inability to provide draws prevented testing	Officer fulfilled statute by permitting telephone access; police need not arrange or transport for independent test	No violation: under controlling precedent police need not assist beyond allowing calls and must not hamper efforts; officers complied
Suppression / admissibility of breath result	Breath result should be suppressed if any of above foundations fail	Proper foundation and statutory compliance established	Breath-test evidence admissible; conviction affirmed

State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression: factual findings for clear error; legal questions reviewed de novo)
State v. McIntyre, 290 Neb. 1021 (statutory/regulatory interpretation is a question of law)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144 (Fourth Amendment stop standards; reasonable suspicion/probable cause for traffic stops)
State v. Sanders, 289 Neb. 335 (observed traffic violation provides probable cause for stop)
State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968 (foundational elements for admissibility of chemical breath tests)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274 (distinguishing method vs. technique in chemical test procedures)
State v. Dake, 247 Neb. 579 (officer need not transport or assist beyond allowing telephone access to arrange independent test)
State v. Huff, 279 Neb. 68 (appellate affirmation based on correct grounds different from trial court's reasoning)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (statutory language given plain meaning)
State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738 (court will not look beyond plain statutory language to ascertain legislative intent)
State v. Dean, 270 Neb. 972 (appellate review limited to issues determined by trial court)