Travis v. Lahm, 306 Neb. 418

Around 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 6, 2018, Officer Austin Smith stopped Harold Travis for speeding, detected the odor of alcohol and marijuana, and administered standardized field sobriety tests.
Travis refused a roadside preliminary breath test (PBT), was arrested, and was later asked to submit to a postarrest chemical test of his breath; Travis declined.
Smith submitted a sworn report to the Nebraska DMV stating he requested the chemical test and Travis refused; the report established a prima facie case for revocation.
At the administrative hearing, Travis testified he did not understand the chemical test was different from the PBT and that Smith told him driving under the influence (DUI) was "a worse offense" than refusing the test; Smith testified he read the postarrest advisement, told Travis the chemical test was separate, and Travis refused.
The DMV hearing officer and the director revoked Travis’ license; the district court affirmed, concluding the only relevant questions were whether Travis was asked to take a test and whether he refused.
Travis appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court arguing he did not actually refuse because of misunderstanding and allegedly misleading information from the officer; the Supreme Court affirmed the revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Travis' conduct constituted a statutory "refusal" to submit to a postarrest chemical test	Travis: he did not understand he was being asked for a separate chemical test and was told DUI was worse than refusal, so his noncompliance was not a refusal	Dept./Smith: Smith read the postarrest advisement, told Travis the chemical test was separate, and Travis admitted he was asked and declined; any misunderstanding is legally irrelevant	Court: Affirmed. A refusal occurs when a reasonable officer would believe the motorist understood the request and manifested unwillingness; Travis admitted being asked and declining, and competent evidence supports revocation

State v. Green, 238 Neb. 328 (Neb. 1991) (refusal defined by conduct that would lead a reasonable officer to believe driver understood request and manifested unwillingness; driver need only understand he was asked to take a test)
Betterman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 273 Neb. 178 (Neb. 2007) (applies Green refusal standard)
Wohlgemuth v. Pearson, 204 Neb. 687 (Neb. 1978) (adopted objective test to avoid inquiry into driver’s subjective state of mind)
Smith v. State, 248 Neb. 360 (Neb. 1995) (revocation improper where officer failed to give statutorily required advisement)
Perrine v. State, 249 Neb. 518 (Neb. 1996) (same as Smith: mandatory advisement requirement prevented revocation)
Wiseman v. Sullivan, 190 Neb. 724 (Neb. 1973) (narrow holding that Miranda-type warnings that reasonably lead a driver to believe they may consult counsel can negate a refusal)
Urwiller v. Neth, 263 Neb. 429 (Neb. 2001) (officer’s sworn report establishes prima facie case for administrative revocation)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 913 (Neb. 1992) (recognizes Wiseman as narrow; misunderstanding of consequences generally not a defense)