State v. Wang, 291 Neb. 632

Jin R. Wang, a Chinese speaker with limited English, was arrested for DUI and required to submit to a chemical breath test at a detox facility.
Arresting officer read an English advisement (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60‑6,199) informing Wang he "shall be permitted" to obtain independent physician evaluation and additional testing; advisement was not given in Mandarin and officer did not confirm Wang understood.
Wang moved to suppress the breath-test results arguing the officer’s failure to advise him in a language he understood violated § 60‑6,199, due process, and equal protection.
The district court denied suppression, finding § 60‑6,199 contains no requirement that the officer advise the arrestee, and that failing to give the advisement in the arrestee’s primary language did not equate to hampering access to independent testing or violate due process/equal protection.
After a bench trial and enhancement hearing, Wang was convicted of third‑offense DUI and appealed the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wang)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether § 60‑6,199 requires an officer to advise arrestees of the right to independent evaluation/testing	§ 60‑6,199 implies a right to advisement; prior holdings should be overruled	Statute contains no advisement requirement; prior Nebraska precedent controls	No statutory advisement required; prior Nebraska cases reaffirmed
Whether due process requires an advisement of statutory right to independent testing	Due process requires advisement so arrestee can meaningfully exercise the right	Rights are statutory not constitutional; due process does not compel advisement	No due process violation; advisement not constitutionally required
Whether due process requires advisement be given in a language the arrestee understands	Failure to give advisement in Mandarin violated due process	Because no advisement is required at all, there is no requirement it be in a particular language	No constitutional requirement to give advisement in defendant’s language
Whether equal protection is violated by reading advisement only in English	Reading the advisement in English discriminates against non‑English speakers	Statute does not classify by language; defendant must show discriminatory purpose	No equal protection violation absent proof of discriminatory purpose

State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823 (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33 (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
State v. Klingelhoefer, 222 Neb. 219 (§ 60‑6,199 does not require officer advisement)
State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274 (precedent addressing advisement under predecessor statute)
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (due process does not require advisement of statutory rights)