State v. Matit
288 Neb. 163
| Neb. | 2014Background
- In March 2012 Sgt. Benjamin Miller observed Daniel D. Matit (aka Yai Bol) in a vehicle parked on a paved strip between the street and sidewalk by an apartment complex at ~1 a.m.; Miller saw the vehicle started several times (lights on, exhaust) though it did not move.
- Miller approached after seeing the driver exit and urinate on a tree; he detected signs of intoxication (bloodshot/watery eyes, alcohol odor, slurred speech, poor dexterity) and observed horizontal gaze nystagmus.
- Matit refused a preliminary breath test, was transported and arrested; post-arrest breath test showed BAC .216.
- Charged with DUI (over .15) with multiple prior convictions; he moved to suppress claiming the vehicle was on private property not open to public access, so arrest lacked probable cause.
- The district court denied suppression, a jury convicted, the court ultimately found sufficient priors to make this a fourth-offense DUI, and sentenced Matit to 2–3 years imprisonment with a 15-year license revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Matit) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / Motion to suppress — was arrest lawful when vehicle on paved strip? | Officer reasonably believed paved strip was public right-of-way; facts observed (starting engine repeatedly, public use) gave probable cause to investigate and arrest. | The vehicle was on private property not open to public access, so DUI statutes and arrest lacked applicability/probable cause. | Court: Officer reasonably believed area open to public access; suppression denied — arrest was supported by probable cause. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Matit was operating or in actual physical control | Circumstantial evidence (seen starting vehicle several times; lights/exhaust; keys at console) established operation/control. | Matit contended State failed to prove operation/control on public area. | Court: Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find operation/control and public access — conviction affirmed. |
| Use of prior convictions and nunc pro tunc order | State relied on prior out-of-state convictions to enhance sentence; court issued nunc pro tunc to reflect priors. | Matit argued Vermont priors improperly used and nunc pro tunc change was erroneous. | Court: Challenges to priors and nunc pro tunc were without merit (consistent with companion decision); enhancement upheld. |
| Excessive sentence | State: sentence within statutory range and based on defendant’s criminal history and sentencing factors. | Matit: 2–3 years + consecutive service and 15-year revocation excessive. | Court: Sentence within statutory limits; no abuse of discretion given defendant’s record — sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Prater, 268 Neb. 655 (2004) (public-access question is primarily factual; parking lot could be open to public access)
- State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (2011) (residential driveway classified as private road/driveway, not open to public access, as matter of law)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause is a commonsense, flexible standard and mistakes of law/fact must be reasonable)
- State v. Portsche, 261 Neb. 160 (2001) (circumstantial evidence, including starting a vehicle, can establish operation for DUI statutes)