State v. Thalken

299 Neb. 857 (2018) · Nebraska Supreme Court · May 11, 2018 · No. No. S-16-830

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the State's exception proceeding arising from a district court's reversal of Matthew F. Thalken's county court conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. The court held that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause because objective facts showed violations concerning the use of auxiliary lights, notwithstanding the officer's mistaken understanding of the applicable law. The court also held that the statutory limitation on reversing a judgment did not prevent reinstatement of the county court conviction because the district court had acted as an intermediate appellate court.

Holdings

  1. The stop was objectively reasonable and supported by probable cause because the undisputed facts established that Thalken violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,225(2) by failing to turn off his auxiliary lights while within 200 feet of the officer's vehicle. The officer's mistaken belief about the law did not defeat probable cause.
  2. Section 29-2316 did not prevent the court from reversing the district court's order and directing reinstatement of the county court conviction because Thalken was not placed legally in jeopardy in the district court, which was sitting only as an appellate court.
  3. The Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01 to review the district court's ruling in an exception proceeding, although the court noted that the State also could have proceeded by appeal under §§ 24-204 and 25-1912.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the traffic stop was supported by probable cause when the officer mistakenly believed that driving with auxiliary lights during normal weather was itself unlawful, but the objective facts established a violation of Nebraska's auxiliary-lighting statutes.
  2. Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 prohibited the Nebraska Supreme Court from reversing the district court's appellate ruling and directing reinstatement of the county court conviction and sentence.
  3. Whether the State properly invoked exception-proceeding jurisdiction to obtain review of the district court's decision sitting as an intermediate appellate court.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (24)

  • State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (2014)(followed)
  • State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017)(followed)
  • State v. Beitel, 296 Neb. 781, 895 N.W.2d 710 (2017)(followed)
  • State v. Au, 285 Neb. 797, 829 N.W.2d 695 (2013)(distinguished)
  • State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (2011)(followed)
  • State v. Ball, 271 Neb. 140, 710 N.W.2d 592 (2006)(followed)
  • State v. Sanders, 289 Neb. 335, 855 N.W.2d 350 (2014)(followed)
  • State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008)(followed)
  • State v. Magallanes, 284 Neb. 871, 824 N.W.2d 696 (2012)(followed by analogy)
  • State v. Schall, 234 Neb. 101, 449 N.W.2d 225 (1989)(partially disapproved)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…