State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822

Background

Shortly after midnight on Feb. 14, 2015, Lincoln police were dispatched after Lincoln Fire & Rescue reported a pickup "all over the road." Officers located Jasa’s pickup and observed weaving and, according to one officer, both driver-side tires briefly cross the lane divider.
Officers stopped the vehicle, conducted field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, and arrested Jasa for DUI. At the jail, a certified operator administered an evidentiary breath test showing a .191 BAC.
Before the evidentiary test, Officer Morrow observed Jasa for 15 minutes; Officer Sears administered the breath test and was listed as the permit holder on the required checklist form. Both officers had Class B permits.
After the test, officers informed Jasa of his right to arrange independent testing and that he could use the jail telephone; he remained in custody as the charge was nonbondable over the weekend.
Jasa moved to suppress the breath 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) § 60-6,199 was violated because officers did not secure independent testing for him. The district court denied suppression; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Jasa's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Legality of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion/probable cause)	Stop unjustified; LFR tip and officer observations insufficient; no violation of municipal lane-straddling statute occurred	Officer observed weaving and (per testimony) tires cross lane line; any traffic violation supplies probable cause	Court affirmed stop: officer testimony and weaving provided objective probable cause to stop
15-minute observation under title 177 (foundation for breath test)	Sears did not personally observe the 15-minute period and did not discuss Morrow’s observations, so checklist requirement not satisfied	Attachment 16 completed; Morrow (permit holder) personally observed 15 minutes and was present at test; title 177 does not require one officer to both observe and administer	Court held foundation met: checklist completed and requirements satisfied; admission proper
Whether a failure to strictly follow title 177 (method vs. technique) affects admissibility	Any noncompliance should render result inadmissible or at least exclude absent strict method compliance	Even if slight deviation occurred, foundational requirements were proven; any technique lapse affects weight, not admissibility	Court declined to reach method/technique distinction because statutory foundation was proved; evidence admissible
§ 60-6,199 independent test right (officer duty to assist)	Officers should have taken more affirmative steps (transport, arrange) because detainee could not reasonably secure testing while jailed and nonbondable	Statute permits independent testing; officers allowed telephone access and did not impede efforts; no duty to assist beyond that (citing Dake)	Court held officers complied with § 60-6,199 by allowing telephone access; no suppression warranted

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (two-part review of suppression rulings)
State v. Sanders, 289 Neb. 335 (traffic violation supplies probable cause for stop)
State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968 (four foundational elements for breath-test admissibility)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274 (distinguishing method vs. technique in test compliance)
State v. Dake, 247 Neb. 579 (officers need not transport or otherwise secure independent test; must not hamper and may allow phone access)