State v. Krannawitter, 939 N.W.2d 335

At ~6:00 a.m. on July 4, 2017, deputy Dennis Guthard (in a marked cruiser) observed an unfamiliar black Nissan Altima slowly enter and park in his neighborhood; he circled back and approached the vehicle, pulling about 5 feet behind it without lights or siren and activating his cruiser camera.
As the driver (Amy Krannawitter) opened the door, Guthard observed disheveled appearance, droopy eyelids, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled a strong odor of alcohol.
Krannawitter’s breath test ~90 minutes later registered .235 g/210L; she was charged with aggravated third-offense DUI.
At trial, the district court denied Krannawitter’s motion to suppress (finding either a tier-one encounter or, alternatively, a stop supported by reasonable suspicion); a jury convicted her.
Posttrial, Krannawitter moved for a new trial based on “newly discovered” amended certificates of analysis showing a different individual actually prepared/tested the breath machine solutions; the district court denied the motion and she appealed.

Issue	Krannawitter's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Legality of initial contact: tier-one encounter vs seizure	The contact was a seizure lacking constitutional justification	Contact was either consensual (tier one) or, if a stop, supported by reasonable suspicion	Court assumed seizure but held reasonable suspicion supported the stop; suppression denied
Reasonable suspicion for investigative stop	Officer’s circling and parking behind the car did not supply particularized suspicion	Officer’s neighborhood knowledge, early hour, unknown vehicle, and evasive backing supported suspicion	Totality of circumstances gave a particularized, objective basis for suspicion; stop justified
Newly discovered evidence (amended certificates) warranting new trial	Amended certificates showing incorrect original paperwork are newly discovered and undermine breath-test foundation	Certificates could have been discovered with diligence and, in any event, do not negate foundational proof for the breath test	Amended certificates were newly discovered but would not probably have produced a substantially different result; new trial denied
Confrontation Clause and testimonial nature of certificates	Amended certificates and affidavits are testimonial; Krannawitter was entitled to confront Hale/Palmer	Certificates are routine, non‑testimonial laboratory records	Certificates are non‑testimonial under this court’s precedent; confrontation claim rejected

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk/short investigative stop doctrine)
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (reasonable-suspicion vehicle stops require particularized, objective basis and consider totality and reliability of information)
State v. Schriner, 303 Neb. 476 (2019) (adopts three-tier framework for police-citizen encounters under Nebraska law)
State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822 (2017) (sets out foundational elements for admissibility of breath-test results)
State v. Fischer, 272 Neb. 963 (2007) (certificates of analysis are nontestimonial routine records)
State v. Cross, 297 Neb. 154 (2017) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)