Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 805

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

offered at the hearing. There is no means of assessing related 

costs to Busch. The Commission’s assigned error on crossappeal is without merit.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that none of Busch’s assignments of error 

have merit. The record reflects that the Commission acted 

within its jurisdiction in affirming Busch’s termination from 

his job, and its decision was supported by sufficient, relevant 

evidence. We find that the Commission’s cross-appeal is also 

without merit.

Affirmed.

City of Beatrice, State of Nebraska, appellee, 

v. Daniel A. Meints, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 11, 2014. Nos. A-12-1083 through A-12-1107.

1. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Appeal and Error. Whether historical facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law 

that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination.

2. Statutes: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a statute is a question 

of law, on which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent 

conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below.

3. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The constitutionality and construction of a statute are questions of law, regarding which an 

appellate court is obligated to reach conclusions independent of those reached by 

the court below.

4. Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, 

whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, 

pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for 

the finder of fact.

5. Constitutional Law: Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure. Warrantless 

searches and seizures are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which 

must be strictly confined by their justifications.

6. Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure: Proof. In the case of a search and 

seizure conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of showing the 

applicability of one or more of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

806 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

7. Warrantless Searches. The warrantless search exceptions recognized by the 

Nebraska Supreme Court include (1) searches undertaken with consent or 

with probable cause, (2) searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory 

searches, (4) searches of evidence in plain view, and (5) searches incident to a 

valid arrest.

8. Police Officers and Sheriffs: Search and Seizure: Evidence. A warrantless 

seizure is justified under the plain view doctrine if (1) a law enforcement officer 

has a legal right to be in the place from which the object subject to the seizure 

could be plainly viewed, (2) the seized object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the seized 

object itself.

9. Constitutional Law: Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure: Police 

Officers and Sheriffs. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures generally requires a law enforcement officer to have 

probable cause to conduct a warrantless search without consent.

10. Search and Seizure: Probable Cause. Probable cause to search requires that the 

known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable 

prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.

11. Judgments: Appeal and Error. Where the record adequately demonstrates that 

the decision of the trial court is correct, although such correctness is based on a 

ground or reason different from that assigned by the trial court, an appellate court 

will affirm.

12. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis 

that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.

13. Ordinances: Presumptions. All ordinances are presumed to be valid.

14. Municipal Corporations: Ordinances: Statutes. The power of a municipality to 

enact and enforce any ordinance must be authorized by state statute.

15. ____: ____: ____. Where there is a direct conflict between a municipal ordinance 

and a state statute, the statute is the superior law. However, if the ordinance and 

statute in question are not contradictory and can coexist, then both are valid.

16. Municipal Corporations: Courts. The general rule is that courts should give 

great deference to a city’s determination of which laws should be enacted for the 

welfare of the people.

17. Statutes. The meaning of a statute is a question of law, and statutory language is 

given its plain and ordinary meaning.

18. Criminal Law: Statutes. Whether a particular course of conduct involves one or 

more distinct offenses under a statute depends on how a legislature has defined 

the allowable unit of prosecution.

19. Appeal and Error. To be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error must 

be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party 

asserting the error.

Appeals from the District Court for Gage County, Daniel

E. Bryan, Jr., Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court 

for Gage County, Steven B. Timm, Judge. Judgment of District 

Court affirmed.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 807

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

Terry K. Barber, of Barber & Barber, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Gregory A. Butcher, Beatrice City Attorney, for appellee.

Moore, Pirtle, and Bishop, Judges.

Pirtle, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Daniel A. Meints appeals the order of the district court for 

Gage County affirming in part and reversing in part an order of 

the Gage County Court.

BACKGROUND

Meints was charged on June 21, 2011, with 12 separate 

counts of violating Beatrice City Code § 16-623 (2002) on 

25 separate dates in the months of May and June 2011. On 

September 19, Meints filed a “corrected” motion to suppress 

evidence, and the matter was heard in the county court for 

Gage County on October 3. All matters were consolidated for 

the purpose of the hearing.

Steve Printy, a code enforcement officer for the City of 

Beatrice, testified. One of his job requirements is to look for 

or monitor unregistered motor vehicles. Printy testified that on 

March 15, 2011, he observed Meints’ Beatrice property from 

the public street. He found motor vehicles with expired license 

plates, motor vehicles with no license plates, and motor vehicles whose engines, wheels, or parts had been removed, altered, 

damaged, or otherwise allowed to deteriorate so that the motor 

vehicle was not capable of being driven on its own power. He 

did not observe a residence, fencing, or closed buildings on 

March 15. He took pictures of the property from the public 

street, the adjacent alley, and the adjacent property not owned 

by Meints. Printy did not enter Meints’ property and did not 

seize any objects or evidence. Printy repeated this process on 

15 separate dates between May 23 and June 17. Printy testified 

that the purpose for the visits was to observe the property and 

reinspect for junk or unlicensed motor vehicles.

Joe McCormick of the Beatrice Police Department testified that on March 15, 2011, he was dispatched to Meints’ 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

808 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

Beatrice property and observed motor vehicles with expired 

license plates, vehicles with no license plates, and vehicles 

in an inoperable condition. McCormick testified he made 

these observations from the public street and did not observe 

a residence, fencing, closed buildings, or “no trespassing” 

signs. McCormick testified that he believed Meints was in 

violation of the Beatrice City Code regarding unregistered 

motor vehicles and that he had probable cause to enter the 

property. He entered the property, took photographs of the 

motor vehicles at issue, and recorded vehicle identification numbers (VIN numbers). McCormick did not enter any 

vehicles, open any car doors, enter any structures, move any 

items, or seize any objects while obtaining VIN numbers and 

taking photographs.

McCormick returned to Meints’ Beatrice property on May 

23, 2011, and made similar observations. He testified that 

the condition of the property was the same except that there 

was a “no trespassing” sign attached to a tree. Meints was 

present and informed McCormick he did not want him on his 

property. On that day also, McCormick believed Meints was 

in violation of the city code and he had probable cause to 

enter. He entered the property to take photographs and record 

VIN numbers to determine whether there were violations of 

the city code. Again, McCormick did not enter any vehicles, 

open any car doors, enter any structures, move any items, 

or seize any objects while obtaining VIN numbers and taking photographs. McCormick issued a citation to Meints for 

violations on May 23 and subsequently repeated this process, 

with the same observations for probable cause and further 

citations issued, on 10 additional dates between May 23 and 

June 16.

Meints cross-examined Printy and McCormick and offered 

evidence, including a copy of a discovery response by Meints 

containing McCormick’s police reports from May 15 to 23, 

2011, photographs of the motor vehicles in question, and registration printouts for the vehicles based upon VIN numbers. 

The trial court overruled Meints’ motion to suppress after the 

submission of briefs by the parties.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 809

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

On January 18, 2012, Meints filed a “Motion for Leave to 

Withdraw Plea,” a “Motion to Quash,” and a “Plea in Bar,” 

2 days prior to trial. The trial court overruled the motion for 

leave to withdraw on January 20, noting Meints had ample 

opportunity to raise the issue prior to trial.

At trial on January 20, 2012, McCormick and Printy both 

testified, as did several other officers. McCormick testified that on March 15, 2011, he was dispatched to Meints’ 

Beatrice property and there witnessed vehicles with expired 

or no license plates. He believed that he had probable cause 

to obtain VIN numbers which were in plain view, and he 

ran those numbers through the “NCJIS” computer system of 

“Beatrice communications” to review Department of Motor 

Vehicles records. The court received an exhibit which contained an image log and photographs taken by McCormick 

on March 15. McCormick returned to the property on May 

23, 24, and 27 through 29 and June 6, 7, 10 through 12, 

and 16 to inspect the property, take photographs, and record 

VIN numbers of the 10 vehicles in continual violation of the 

city code.

Printy testified he observed the same 10 vehicles in violation on May 23 through 27 and 31, 2011, as well as June 3, 6 

through 10, and 15 through 17. Two other officers made similar 

observations on June 8 and 9 and on May 25, 26, 30, and 31, 

as well as June 3, 4, 13, and 14, respectively.

On March 30, 2012, the trial court found Meints guilty on 

all counts across all dates and overruled Meints’ motion to 

quash and plea in bar. Meints appealed this matter to the district court for Gage County on May 16. The matter was heard 

in the district court on September 6. Evidence was adduced, 

exhibits were offered and received, and arguments were submitted by brief. On October 19, the district court affirmed 

the trial court’s decisions on counts I through X across all 25 

dates. The district court reversed the trial court’s findings of 

guilt as to counts XI and XII across all 25 dates and ordered 

that the case be remanded to the county court with directions 

to dismiss on those latter two counts. Meints appealed the decision of the district court on November 19.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

810 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

The 25 cases were consolidated at trial and on appeal to the 

district court. Cases Nos. A-12-1083 through A-12-1107 are 

also consolidated for purposes of this appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Meints asserts the court erred in overruling Meints’ suppression motion, finding that the city’s proof was sufficient to find 

him guilty, failing to find that § 16-623 of the Beatrice City 

Code is invalid, and finding that Meints’ multiple prosecutions 

under the city code did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause 

of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Meints also asserts the court erred in overruling Meints’ plea 

in bar, overruling Meints’ motion to quash, overruling Meints’ 

motion for leave to withdraw his earlier plea, and not finding that § 16-623 is unconstitutional. However, these issues 

were not addressed in Meints’ brief and will not be addressed 

on appeal. See Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472, 827 N.W.2d 

248 (2013).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court applies a two-part standard of review 

to suppression issues. With regard to historical facts, the court 

reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error. “[W]hether 

those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections 

is a question of law that we review independently of the trial 

court’s determination.” State v. Bromm, 285 Neb. 193, 197, 826 

N.W.2d 270, 274 (2013).

[2] The meaning of a statute is a question of law, on which 

an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent 

conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court 

below. State v. Magallanes, 284 Neb. 871, 824 N.W.2d 696 

(2012), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2359, 185 L. Ed. 

2d 1082 (2013).

[3] The constitutionality and construction of a statute are 

questions of law, regarding which we are obligated to reach 

conclusions independent of those reached by the court below. 

See State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703, 824 N.W.2d 668 (2012).

[4] In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, 

whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 811

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not 

resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of 

witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for 

the finder of fact. State v. Ross, 283 Neb. 742, 811 N.W.2d 

298 (2012).

ANALYSIS

Motion to Suppress.

Meints asserts the county court should have granted his 

motion to suppress the observations and photographic evidence 

collected by the officers on his property. Meints asserts that 

he did not give consent for anyone, including code enforcement or police officers, to enter his property and that he had a 

reasonable expectation of privacy. He asserts the property containing the motor vehicles was subject to an unlawful search 

and seizure. Therefore, he asserts, all photographs and observations of his property should have been suppressed.

There is no dispute that the officers entered the property 

without a warrant to record VIN numbers and take photographs. The trial court in this case found, and the district court 

affirmed, that the warrantless entry and “seizure” of VIN numbers were justified under the open fields exception.

The open fields exception states that the special protection 

accorded by U.S. Const. Amend. IV to the people in their 

“persons, houses, papers, and effects” is not extended to open 

fields. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S. Ct. 445, 68 

L. Ed. 98 (1924). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that neither 

probable cause nor a warrant is required to carry out police 

searches of open fields. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 

104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984). The Court held that 

the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is the question 

of whether a person has a constitutionally protected, reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. The Nebraska Supreme Court 

has held that the asserted expectation of privacy in open fields 

is not an expectation that society recognizes as reasonable, as 

these lands are usually accessible to the public and police in 

ways that a home, an office, or a commercial structure would 

not be. State v. Havlat, 222 Neb. 554, 385 N.W.2d 436 (1986). 

The court in Havlat applied the exception to a warrantless 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

812 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

search of a grain and livestock operation on a fenced property. 

In doing so, the court discussed the open fields exception in the 

context of rural areas where the cultivation of crops, hunting, 

and fishing occur.

Meints argues that the open fields exception is inapplicable here because the property in question was located within 

the city. Without deciding whether the open fields exception 

applies here, we approach this appeal by first examining the 

law with regard to warrantless searches and seizures.

[5,6] Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few 

specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which 

must be strictly confined by their justifications. State v. Borst, 

281 Neb. 217, 795 N.W.2d 262 (2011). In the case of a search 

and seizure conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of showing the applicability of one or more of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. Id.

[7] The warrantless search exceptions recognized by the 

Nebraska Supreme Court include (1) searches undertaken with 

consent or with probable cause, (2) searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory searches, (4) searches of evidence in 

plain view, and (5) searches incident to a valid arrest. Id.

The city asserts the search of Meints’ Beatrice property 

was appropriate, because the vehicles and license plates were 

in plain view and the officers had probable cause to enter 

the property.

[8] A warrantless seizure is justified under the plain view 

doctrine if (1) a law enforcement officer has a legal right to be 

in the place from which the object subject to the seizure could 

be plainly viewed, (2) the seized object’s incriminating nature 

is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right 

of access to the seized object itself. Id.

While the vehicles and some of the license plates were 

observable in plain view from the sidewalks where the officers 

had a legal right to be, VIN numbers were not. The plain view 

doctrine would not justify the recording of VIN numbers and 

the taking of photographs, because such were obtained only 

after the officers went onto Meints’ property. We therefore turn 

to an examination of whether law enforcement in this case 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 813

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

had probable cause to conduct the warrantless search without 

Meints’ consent.

[9,10] The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures generally requires a law enforcement officer to have probable cause to conduct a warrantless 

search without consent. J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, 285 

Neb. 890, 830 N.W.2d 453 (2013), citing State v. Borst, supra. 

Probable cause to search requires that the known facts and 

circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable 

prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime 

will be found. State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352, 803 N.W.2d 

450 (2011).

Beatrice City Code § 16-621 (1999) defines a “junked motor 

vehicle” as follows:

A motor vehicle on which the engine, wheels or other 

parts have been removed, altered, damaged or otherwise 

so treated or allowed to deteriorate that the motor vehicle 

is incapable of being drawn under its own power. A 

motor vehicle which does not have an unexpired license 

plate or plates affixed thereto shall be presumed to be a 

junked motor vehicle; provided, that such presumption 

may be rebutted.

McCormick testified that when he arrived at Meints’ 

Beatrice property, he stood on a public street. From this location, he could observe motor vehicles with expired license 

plates, vehicles with no license plates, and vehicles in inoperable condition. These vehicles fit the definition in § 16-621 of 

junked motor vehicles, and there is a presumption based on 

such observations that the property owner was in violation of 

the city code. McCormick testified that he believed Meints was 

in violation of the Beatrice City Code regarding unregistered 

motor vehicles and that he believed he had probable cause to 

enter the property to take photographs and record VIN numbers of the vehicles, which VIN numbers were to be used to 

search for the corresponding records within the Department of 

Motor Vehicles’ database to confirm the registration status of 

each vehicle.

In light of these facts, and the provisions in the city code, it 

was reasonable for McCormick to believe that expired license 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

814 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

plates and the associated VIN numbers on the corresponding 

vehicles could be evidence of a crime, therefore affording 

him probable cause to lawfully enter the property to record 

this information.

McCormick testified that once he entered the property, he 

did not enter any vehicles, open any doors, enter any structures, move any items, or seize any objects while recording 

VIN numbers and photographing the property.

[11] Based upon our review of the evidence, we find 

McCormick and the Beatrice police officers had a legal right 

to be on a public street to observe the vehicles and the associated license plates. Several vehicles on the property could be 

observed from the street and could be presumed to be in violation of the city code. As stated above, McCormick’s observations of expired license plates gave him probable cause to 

enter the property to record VIN numbers and take additional 

photographs to determine whether the photographs and observations were evidence of a crime; thus, he had a lawful right 

of access to the “seized” evidence. We find the county court 

properly overruled Meints’ motion to suppress the photographs 

and observations of the officers, although for a reason which 

differs from that found by the trial court. Where the record 

adequately demonstrates that the decision of the trial court 

is correct, although such correctness is based on a ground or 

reason different from that assigned by the trial court, an appellate court will affirm. State v. Huff, 279 Neb. 68, 776 N.W.2d 

498 (2009).

[12] Having found that the warrantless search was undertaken with probable cause, we need not address the lower 

courts’ findings that the open fields exception to the prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures existed in this case. 

An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that 

is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before 

it. State v. Jimenez, 283 Neb. 95, 808 N.W.2d 352 (2012).

Sufficiency of Evidence.

Meints was charged with violating § 16-623 of the Beatrice 

City Code (“[p]arked, junked or unregistered motor vehicles”) 

on occasions constituting 12 counts over 25 separate days.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 815

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

Section 16-623(a) of the city code states, in part:

It shall be unlawful for any person to park, store, leave or 

permit the parking, storing or leaving of any junked motor 

vehicle, or parts of a motor vehicle, on private property 

within the city for a period of time in excess of twentyone (21) days. It shall be unlawful for any person in 

charge or control of any private property within the city, 

whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee or otherwise, 

to allow any motor vehicle which has been unregistered 

for more than twenty-one (21) days to remain upon any 

private property. Any motor vehicle allowed to remain on 

private property in violation of this subsection shall constitute a nuisance and shall be abated.

Meints asserts the city has not proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the vehicles were unregistered. He does not challenge that these were motor vehicles, upon his private property, 

all there in excess of the 21-day period, or that they remained 

there on 25 separate days after the expiration of the 21-day 

period. He also concedes that each vehicle on each date had 

either an expired license plate or no license plate at all. While 

he concedes the vehicles were not licensed, he asserts that the 

charge is lack of registration of the vehicles and that there is no 

evidence they were not registered.

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether 

the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, 

the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve 

conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, 

or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 

State v. Ross, 283 Neb. 742, 811 N.W.2d 298 (2012). The relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 

a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

In addressing this argument, both the county court and the 

district court found that the fact that a vehicle does not have 

a valid license plate is strong circumstantial evidence that the 

vehicle is also unregistered.

The Nebraska Revised Statutes provide that motor vehicle 

registration and license plates are regulated by the Motor 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

816 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

Vehicle Registration Act. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-389 (Reissue 

2010) states that when a person applies for registration of 

a motor vehicle, “the department shall, upon registration, 

assign to such motor vehicle or trailer a distinctive registration number in the form of a license plate.” Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 60-3,100 (Reissue 2010) also states that the Department of 

Motor Vehicles shall issue to every person whose motor vehicle or trailer is registered two fully reflectorized license plates 

to be displayed on the front and back of each registered motor 

vehicle or trailer. The certificate of registration contains the 

same registration number denoted on the license plates. Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 60-390 (Reissue 2010).

Several officers testified that they observed the lack of upto-date license plates and that from that information, one could 

infer that the relevant vehicles on Meints’ Beatrice property 

were unregistered. In addition, Beatrice police officers testified 

that they obtained VIN numbers for the vehicles observed on 

the property and searched a computer system for corresponding 

Department of Motor Vehicles records. Some of the vehicles 

were unregistered, some of them did not have identifiable VIN 

numbers, and some VIN numbers did not produce records 

within the system to obtain registration records.

The lack of up-to-date license plates, taken together with 

the condition of the vehicles, the lack of information in the 

Department of Motor Vehicles system, and the photographs 

and observations of the police officers on March 15, 2011, and 

continuing through May and June 2011, are sufficient for a 

rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crimes 

charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court did not 

err in affirming the decision of the trial court.

Validity of § 16-623.

Meints alleges the city code is invalid because it criminalizes conduct which is not criminal under the Nebraska Revised 

Statutes. He argues that the time limit in the state statute 

regulating unregistered vehicles is 30 days, that the limit in the 

Beatrice City Code regulating the same is 21 days, and that 

there is therefore an irreconcilable conflict which makes the 

city ordinance unenforceable.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 817

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

[13-15] All ordinances are presumed to be valid. Village of 

Winside v. Jackson, 250 Neb. 851, 553 N.W.2d 476 (1996). 

However, the power of a municipality to enact and enforce 

any ordinance must be authorized by state statute. State v. 

Loyd, 265 Neb. 232, 655 N.W.2d 703 (2003). Where there 

is a direct conflict between a municipal ordinance and a 

state statute, the statute is the superior law. See id. However, 

if the ordinance and statute in question are not contradictory and can coexist, then both are valid. Jacobson v. Solid 

Waste Agency of Northwest Neb., 264 Neb. 961, 653 N.W.2d 

482 (2002).

As it is written, § 16-623 of the Beatrice City Code prohibits 

the storage of junked or unregistered vehicles for more than 21 

days and labels any vehicle so stored as a nuisance.

Meints asserts the city’s ordinance reflecting a 21-day period 

for storage of unregistered motor vehicles is in conflict with 

the Nebraska Revised Statutes. He cites to five Nebraska statutes which permit the operation, towing, or parking of motor 

vehicles or trailers without registration for up to 30 days: Neb. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 60-362 (Reissue 2010), “[r]egistration required; 

presumption”; 60-365 (Reissue 2010), “[o]peration of vehicle 

without registration; limitation; proof of ownership”; 60-366 

(Reissue 2010), “[n]onresident owner; registration; when; reciprocity”; 60-376 (Reissue 2010), “[o]peration of vehicle without registration; In Transit sticker; records required; proof 

of ownership”; and 60-3,164 (Reissue 2010), “[o]peration or 

parking of unregistered vehicle; penalty.”

Meints fails to take into account that §§ 60-362, 60-365, 

and 60-3,164 apply to motor vehicles or trailers operated, 

parked, or towed on the highways of this state; § 60-366 

governs registration requirements for a narrow group of nonresidents of this state; and § 60-376 governs the operation of 

a vehicle without registration while the vehicle is in transit.

The city ordinance is not in conflict with the Nebraska statutes cited by Meints, because the ordinance is specifically 

geared toward vehicles parked, stored, or left on private 

property within the city, not on public roads within the state. 

As the city ordinance is not in conflict with the statutes, they 

may coexist.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

818 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

Meints also alleges the ordinance criminalizes that which 

is not criminal under the Nebraska Revised Statutes. Meints 

concedes that the city has discretion to determine what constitutes a nuisance, but asserts that the city may not categorize 

something that is lawful under the Nebraska statutes to be a 

nuisance in Beatrice.

[16] The city is authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 18-1720 

(Reissue 2012) to “define, regulate, suppress and prevent 

nuisances, and to declare what shall constitute a nuisance, 

and to abate and remove the same.” The Nebraska statutes 

do not address or regulate the placement or open storage of 

unlicensed, unregistered, or junk motor vehicles upon private 

property. This falls within the discretion of the city, as authorized by § 18-1720. In addition, the district court also notes 

that a similar ordinance regulating and prohibiting junked 

vehicles was upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Village 

of Brady v. Melcher, 243 Neb. 728, 502 N.W.2d 458 (1993). 

The general rule is that courts should give great deference to 

a city’s determination of which laws should be enacted for the 

welfare of the people. See Giger v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 

676, 442 N.W.2d 182 (1989).

For the reasons stated above, we find that this assignment of 

error is without merit.

Double Jeopardy.

Meints asserts his multiple prosecutions for violations of 

§ 16-623 of the Beatrice City Code violate the Double Jeopardy 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Meints questions the city’s authority to pass an ordinance 

which allows a separate offense for each day a violation 

occurs, but cites no authority for this assertion.

As we noted, previously, § 18-1720 grants all cities in 

Nebraska the power and authority to define, regulate, suppress, 

and prevent nuisances; to declare what shall constitute a nuisance; and to abate and remove the same. Every city and village is authorized to exercise such power and authority within 

its zoning jurisdiction.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 819

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

[17] The meaning of a statute is a question of law, and 

statutory language is given its plain and ordinary meaning. See 

State v. Magallanes, 284 Neb. 871, 824 N.W.2d 696 (2012). 

An appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain 

the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and 

unambiguous. Id.

The plain meaning of § 18-1720 is that the Legislature gives 

permission to each city to define, regulate, suppress, and prevent nuisances as they are defined by each city. Beatrice chose 

to define a nuisance as one existing on each separate day in 

excess of a 21-day period, and its city code stated that each 

day’s violation thereof is a distinct offense.

We note that Meints was on notice that the vehicles on his 

property constituted a violation of the city code. Code enforcement officer Printy and Beatrice police officers visited Meints’ 

Beatrice property on March 15, 2011. On March 23, Printy 

sent Meints a “Notice to Remove” letter informing him that he 

was in violation of the Beatrice City Code. The letter contains 

the language of § 16-623(a) and the definition in § 16-621 of a 

“junked motor vehicle” discussed above. The letter concludes 

with a warning, stating:

If the vehicle is not removed by the date specified . . . 

a citation will be issued requiring you to appear in court. 

The penalty for this offense is a fine of a minimum of 

$100 up to a maximum fine of $500.00 per vehicle. A different citation may be issued for each day that the violation continues.

Beatrice police returned to the property on May 23, 2011, 

well after the designated 21 days had passed, and the officers 

found that the property remained in the same condition. After 

ascertaining that the same vehicles were present, McCormick 

issued a citation. This process continued on 10 additional dates 

through June 16.

Meints had ample notice that he was in violation of the 

city code, and he was informed that each day could, and often 

did in fact, result in another citation. Meints was aware that 

Printy visited the property and that Beatrice police officers 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

820 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

entered the property and issued citations. Meints was given 

over 2 months to abate the cited nuisance, and he failed to 

do so.

Meints asserts acts constituting a course of conduct are not 

punishable separately if the Legislature intends to punish the 

course of conduct. See U.S. v. Horodner, 993 F.2d 191 (9th 

Cir. 1993). He cites to U.S. v. Jones, 403 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 

2005), which states the court’s belief that Congress intended 

the crime of possession to refer to a course of conduct, rather 

than individual acts of dominion, and its ultimate conclusion 

that the continuous possession of the same firearm constitutes 

a single offense.

[18] The Nebraska Supreme Court has stated that whether 

a particular course of conduct involves one or more distinct 

offenses under a statute depends on how a legislature has 

defined the allowable unit of prosecution. State v. Al-Sayagh, 

268 Neb. 913, 689 N.W.2d 587 (2004). The Nebraska Supreme 

Court considered whether two separate counts of possession 

of the same firearm were two distinct violations, based on the 

statutory language, in State v. Williams, 211 Neb. 650, 319 

N.W.2d 748 (1982). The court stated:

Neither the statute itself nor the history leading to its 

enactment gives us any indication as to whether the 

Legislature intended that each day constitute a separate 

offense or whether the offense is one which is considered 

in the law as a continuing offense. Certainly it would 

have been easy enough for the Legislature to have so provided if that was its intent.

State v. Williams, 211 Neb. at 655, 319 N.W.2d at 751.

In this case, the intent of the drafters of the Beatrice City 

Code is clear, and the “allowable unit of prosecution” is clearly 

defined. The ordinance explicitly states that each day a violation of any of its provisions continues shall constitute a distinct 

offense and be punishable as such.

Further, multiple sections of the Nebraska Revised 

Statutes contain provisions detailing separate offenses for 

each day upon which they continue. The following are a 

few examples: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-512.08 and 12-618 

(Reissue 2012) (perpetual care), 71-5733(3) (Reissue 2009) 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

CITY OF BEATRICE v. MEINTS 821

Cite as 21 Neb. App. 805

(Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act), 46-266 (Reissue 2010) (irrigation works), 60-6,373 (Reissue 2010) (vehicle emissions), 

71-6329 and 71-6331 (Reissue 2009) (Residential Lead-Based 

Paint Professions Practice Act), and 71-6312 (Reissue 2009) 

(Asbestos Control Act). As the trial court pointed out, if such 

provisions were not in place, the practical effect would be that 

one who once pays a fine has been granted license to maintain 

a perpetual nuisance.

Meints also asserts the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated by citing him for multiple vehicles based upon identical 21-day periods without registration. The language of the 

city code states, “Any motor vehicle allowed to remain on 

private property in violation of [§ 16-623(a)] shall constitute 

a nuisance and shall be abated.” By stating that any vehicle 

so stored constitutes a nuisance, it appears that the drafters intended to allow each nuisance to be separately cited 

and abated.

We find that Meints’ prosecution for the continual violation 

of the city code by storing multiple vehicles beyond the 21-day 

period specified in the city code did not violate the Double 

Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Remaining Assignments of Error.

[19] To be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error 

must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in 

the brief of the party asserting the error. Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 

Neb. 472, 827 N.W.2d 248 (2013).

Meints also asserts the trial court erred in overruling Meints’ 

plea in bar, overruling Meints’ motion to quash, overruling 

Meints’ motion for leave to withdraw his earlier plea, and not 

finding that § 16-623 is unconstitutional. These errors were 

assigned but not argued in Meints’ brief; therefore, we do not 

consider these errors upon appeal.

CONCLUSION

Upon our review, we find that the district court did not err 

in affirming the decision of the trial court finding Meints guilty 

of 10 counts of violating § 16-623 of the Beatrice City Code 

on 25 separate days. We find that Meints’ Fourth Amendment 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

822 21 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

rights were not violated and that there was sufficient evidence 

to support the trial court’s finding that Meints was guilty 

on such counts beyond a reasonable doubt. We find that the 

Beatrice City Code does not contradict state law and does not 

criminalize conduct which is lawful under any state statute. 

We also find that multiple prosecutions for the violations of 

the Beatrice City Code do not violate the Double Jeopardy 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We affirm the decision of the 

district court.

Affirmed.

Stacy Bolles, wife of Gregory Bolles, deceased, 

on her behalf and on behalf of others eligible

for benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 48-122 et seq., appellee, v. Midwest

Sheet Metal Co., Inc., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 11, 2014. No. A-13-203.

1. Workers’ Compensation: Judgments: Evidence: Appeal and Error.

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 2010), a judgment of the Workers’ 

Compensation Court may be modified, reversed, or set aside based on the ground 

that there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making 

of the order, judgment, or award.

2. Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. In determining whether to affirm, 

modify, reverse, or set aside a judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Court, 

an appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact of the trial judge unless 

clearly wrong.

3. Workers’ Compensation: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact by the Workers’ 

Compensation Court, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to 

the successful party, every controverted fact is resolved in favor of the successful 

party, and the successful party has the benefit of every inference that is reasonably deducible from the evidence.

4. Workers’ Compensation: Judgments: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Workers’ 

Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 11(A) (2011) requires the Workers’ Compensation Court to 

write decisions that provide the basis for a meaningful appellate review.

5. ____: ____: ____: ____. Workers’ Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 11(A) (2011) requires 

the judge to specify the evidence upon which the judge relies.