State v. Taylor, 966 N.W.2d 510

Officers stopped Taylor after observing his vehicle driving at night with headlights off, crossing the centerline, and striking a curb; Taylor was the sole occupant.
Taylor told officers he had fallen asleep while driving and admitted to taking prescription medications (Seroquel/quetiapine and Effexor/venlafaxine) that made him "sleepy."
Officers observed slow/slurred speech, extreme tiredness, and poor performance on field sobriety tests; breath tests showed no alcohol.
A certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluated Taylor and opined he was under the influence of central nervous system (CNS) depressants and unsafe to drive.
Urinalysis detected venlafaxine and quetiapine.
Taylor was convicted in county court for violating Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.16.030 (driving under the influence), the district court affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the appeal.

Issue	State's Argument	Taylor's Argument	Held
Whether the ordinance's term "any drug" excludes prescription medications because DHHS regulation defines "drug" to seven listed substances	The ordinance uses the plain term "any drug," which includes prescription medications; DHHS regulation governs testing methods, not the scope of "drug" in the ordinance	DHHS regulation (177 Neb. Admin. Code ch.7 §001.13) limits the definition of "drug" for DUI laws to seven listed substances, excluding his prescriptions	The court held "any drug" has its plain, ordinary meaning and includes prescription medications; DHHS testing-definition does not redefine the ordinance term
Whether evidence sufficed to prove Taylor was "under the influence" of his prescription medications	Evidence (driving behavior, admissions, poor sobriety performance, DRE opinion, and urinalysis detecting medications) was sufficient to prove impairment to an appreciable degree	Taylor argued fatigue or lawful prescribed use explained his condition and asserted evidentiary/admissibility errors and public policy concerns	The court held the properly admitted evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Taylor was under the influence of his prescription medications

State v. Iddings, 304 Neb. 759, 936 N.W.2d 747 (Neb. 2020) (assignments of error must be specifically assigned and argued)
State v. Valentino, 305 Neb. 96, 939 N.W.2d 345 (Neb. 2020) (scope and standards for county-court appeals)
State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96, 933 N.W.2d 558 (Neb. 2019) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
Walsh v. City of Omaha Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 277 Neb. 554, 763 N.W.2d 411 (Neb. 2009) (apply same interpretive rules to ordinances and statutes)
Parks v. Hy-Vee, 307 Neb. 927, 951 N.W.2d 504 (Neb. 2020) (courts must not read meaning into or out of statutes)
Rouse v. State, 301 Neb. 1037, 921 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. 2019) (interpretation of "any" as expansive)
State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903, 775 N.W.2d 47 (Neb. 2009) ("under the influence" requires impairment appreciable enough to affect safe driving)
Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605, 935 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 2019) (courts do not decide policy preferences best left to Legislature)