NESCT throws out 2 admin license suspensions

Hahn v. Neth, S-04-560, 270 Neb. 164 Arndt v. Department of Motor Vehicles, S-04-584, 270 Neb. 172 July 15, 2005 The NESCT throws out 2 administrative drivers' license suspensions Friday July 15, 2005. Seems the Nebraska Supreme court has been somewhat hostile to the drivers license suspension system directed at getting drunk drivers off the road since the Legislature implemented the system 12 years ago, cf State v Smith 248 Neb. 360(1995). In Hahn, NESCT agrees with the district court that the failure of the arresting officer to properly complete the license suspension form deprived the Department of MotorVehicles of jurisdiction over the suspension action. The arresting officer in Hahn failed to note that he requested the suspect take the test and also failed to indicate whether the test was of breath or urine, required by § 60-6,205(3)(transferred to 60-498.01). The Court stated its test to determine whether an omission from the officers sworn report that initiates the administrative license suspension action is "notwithstanding the omission, the sworn report conveys the information required by the applicable statute...the report must, at a minimum, contain the information specified in the applicable statute, § 60-6,205(3), in order to confer jurisdiction." The Supremes further overrule earlier cases that suggested officers could cure defective reports with additional testimony at the admin hearing: "To the extent language in Morrissey v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 264 Neb. 456, 647 N.W.2d 644 (2002), and McPherrin v. Conrad, 248 Neb. 561, 537 N.W.2d 498 (1995), suggests that a sworn report which does not include information required by statute may be supplemented by evidence offered at a subsequent hearing, it is disapproved." The drunk driver in Arndt kept his license because the police officer who filled out the suspension form had not actually been present when police arrested the drunk driver on Cornhuser Road in Sarpy County. The district court held that the failure of Sarpy county law enforcement to submit an arresting officers report lead to a failure of producing a prima facie case: “Due to the fact that the sworn report was not completed by the arresting officer pursuant to the requirements of § 60-498.01, ( the Director's suspension order) was not supported by the evidence and the revocation is reversed.” The Supreme Court agrees, holding "because the report submitted by Reed was not sufficient to confer authority upon the director of the Department to revoke Arndt’s operator’s license, the district court properly reversed the order of revocation."