State v. Jasa, 901 N.W.2d 315

Shortly after midnight on Feb. 14, 2015, Lincoln officers stopped Jamos M. Jasa after a dispatch reporting a vehicle "all over the road" and officers observed the pickup weaving and (per officer testimony) briefly crossing the lane line.
Field sobriety testing and a preliminary breath test at the scene led to Jasa’s arrest for DUI; he was taken to the county jail and administered an evidentiary breath test that read .191.
Officer Morrow conducted a 15-minute observation of Jasa prior to the breath test; Officer Sears (the listed permit holder) administered the breath test while both officers were present; attachment 16 (the required checklist) was completed and identified Sears as permit holder.
After the test, officers told Jasa he could arrange and pay for independent testing and would be allowed telephone access to do so; Jasa remained in custody and did not arrange a timely independent blood test despite later making many jail calls.
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) officers violated § 60-6,199 by not securing independent testing; the district court denied suppression and the jury convicted Jasa of aggravated DUI (third offense).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jasa)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Legality of traffic stop	LFR tip + officer observations insufficient; no traffic violation under municipal code	Officer observed weaving (and district court found crossing) — any traffic violation justifies stop	Stop supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause; affirmed
15-minute observation under title 177	Sears didn’t personally observe the 15-minute period; relying on Morrow invalidates foundation	Attachment 16 requirements were met: Morrow observed 15 minutes, checklist completed, both officers present	Foundation satisfied; breath result admissible
Whether Method/Technique noncompliance renders test inadmissible	Any failure to follow title 177 method should bar admission	Even if technique imperfect, requirements were met; Miller distinction not outcome-determinative here	No error; admissible (strict compliance shown)
§ 60-6,199 — right to independent testing	Officers should have done more than permit phone access (e.g., assist or transport), failure denied opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence	Under Dake police need not transport or arrange tests but must not hamper and must allow phone access; officers did so	No violation of § 60-6,199; allowing phone access satisfied officers’ duty (affirmed)

State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (appellate review standard for suppression) (explains mixed standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Sanders, 289 Neb. 335 (traffic violation alone creates probable cause for a stop)
State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968 (four foundational elements for admissibility of breath test)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274 (distinguishing method vs. technique; noncompliance affects weight/credibility)
State v. Dake, 247 Neb. 579 (police need not assist in obtaining independent testing beyond allowing telephone access)