Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Ryan T. Prescott's second-offense DUI conviction and sentence. The court upheld the traffic stop, field sobriety testing, preliminary breath test, and blood-test evidence, concluding that the State established adequate foundations for the testing results. The court also held that Nebraska Revised Statute § 60-6,197.04 is constitutional because a preliminary breath test requires reasonable, articulable suspicion rather than probable cause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trooper had probable cause to stop Prescott's vehicle for speeding without independent corroboration of the radar results.
- Whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop and administer field-sobriety tests.
- Whether the field-sobriety-test results established impairment sufficient to support probable cause for arrest.
- Whether the preliminary breath test had a sufficient foundation for admission and could support probable cause for arrest.
- Whether the blood-test results were admissible despite alleged noncompliance with Nebraska's alcohol-testing requirements.
- Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,197.04 was facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied because it permits a preliminary breath test on reasonable grounds rather than probable cause.
Holdings
- A traffic stop is objectively reasonable when the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred; the State need not independently corroborate the officer's testimony about speeding when speeding is not the charged offense.
- After a lawful traffic stop, an officer may detain a motorist for field-sobriety testing when specific, articulable facts create reasonable suspicion that the motorist is driving under the influence.
- An officer may testify about HGN field-sobriety-test results when adequately trained and when the test is administered and assessed in accordance with that training; variations from ideal testing conditions generally affect weight rather than validity or admissibility.
- Testimony that the officer followed the applicable Nebraska Administrative Code requirements, together with testimony regarding calibration and the required observation period, was sufficient to establish a foundation for admitting the preliminary breath-test results.
- Alleged deficiencies in compliance with Nebraska's alcohol-testing regulations generally affect the weight and credibility of blood-test evidence rather than its admissibility, and the testimony in this case established sufficient compliance.
- An officer does not need probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test; specific, articulable facts indicating that a driver has been driving under the influence are sufficient.
Key quotations
“We therefore conclude that the administration of a PBT does not need to be supported by probable cause.” (886)
“We find no merit to Prescott's assignments of error. The decision of the district court is affirmed.” (886)
Factual background
A Nebraska State Patrol trooper stopped Prescott after visually estimating and confirming by radar that he was traveling 65 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone. The trooper observed a firearm, smelled a moderate odor of alcohol from the vehicle and Prescott's breath, learned that Prescott had consumed two beers and had not eaten since late morning, and administered field-sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. Prescott showed impairment indicators on the HGN and walk-and-turn tests, failed the preliminary breath test, and was arrested; a subsequent blood test showed a blood alcohol concentration of .093.
Procedural history
After a traffic stop, Prescott was charged with second-offense DUI. The county court denied his motion to suppress, admitted the field-sobriety, preliminary-breath-test, and blood-test evidence, found him guilty, and sentenced him to six months' probation. The district court affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision.