State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822

Background

Shortly after midnight on Feb. 14, 2015, Lincoln officers responded to a dispatch from Lincoln Fire & Rescue reporting a pickup "all over the road"; officers located and stopped Jasa’s pickup after observing weaving and at least briefly crossing a lane line.
Officers performed field sobriety testing and a preliminary breath test; Jasa was arrested for DUI and taken to the Lancaster County jail.
Officer Morrow observed Jasa for 15 minutes before Officer Sears (the permit holder on the checklist form) administered a breath test; the test read .191 BAC.
The officers told Jasa he could arrange independent testing and would have access to the jail telephone; Jasa made multiple calls in jail but did not arrange a timely independent blood test.
The district court denied Jasa’s motion to suppress (finding the stop justified by weaving and the dispatch, Title 177 observation requirements satisfied by Morrow/Sears working together, and no § 60-6,199 violation), admitted the breath result, and a jury convicted Jasa of aggravated DUI (third offense).

Issues

Issue	Jasa's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Legality of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion/probable cause)	LFR tip + officer observations were insufficient; no violation under municipal code	Officers observed weaving (and video/support) and had dispatch corroboration; any traffic violation supplies probable cause	Stop was justified; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous and stop objectively reasonable
15-minute observation under Title 177 (who must observe)	Sears did not personally observe the 15-minute period and did not discuss it with Morrow; noncompliance invalidates foundation	Attachment 16 tasks were performed: Morrow observed 15 minutes, both officers present, checklist completed by Morrow identifying Sears as permit holder	Admissible: State proved Title 177 requirements; district court did not err admitting breath result
§ 60-6,199 — right to independent testing	Officers failed to assist or ensure independent testing; inability to obtain test at jail frustrated statutory right	Officers informed Jasa of right, allowed telephone access; police need not transport or arrange testing—only must not hamper attempts	No violation: under State v. Dake officers satisfied § 60-6,199 by permitting calls and not impeding efforts
Suppression / admissibility of breath test	Breath test should be suppressed for procedural noncompliance and denied independent test opportunity	Foundational elements and methods satisfied; any technique issues go to weight, not admissibility	Breath result admissible; suppression denied and conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression)
State v. McIntyre, 290 Neb. 1021 (statutory/regulatory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144 (Fourth Amendment traffic-stop law)
State v. Sanders, 289 Neb. 335 (traffic violation creates probable cause)
State v. Huff, 279 Neb. 68 (affirmation on alternative grounds)
State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968 (four foundational elements for breath-test admissibility)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274 (distinguishing method vs. technique in chemical testing context)
State v. Dake, 247 Neb. 579 (police need not transport; must not hamper and should allow telephone calls for independent testing)
State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 714 (limits on judicially reading into statutes)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (statutory language plain-meaning principle)
State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738 (will not look beyond plain statutory language)
State v. Dean, 270 Neb. 972 (appellate consideration limited to issues preserved below)