IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(Memorandum Web Opinion)

STATE V. BREHM

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,

V.

GARRETT R. BREHM, APPELLANT.

Filed June 30, 2015. No. A-14-788.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, JOHN A. COLBORN, Judge, on appeal 

thereto from the County Court for Lancaster County, LAURIE YARDLEY, Judge. Judgment of 

District Court affirmed.

Heidi M. Hayes, of Morrow, Poppe, Watermeier & Lonowski, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.

MOORE, Chief Judge, and PIRTLE and BISHOP, Judges.

PIRTLE, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Garrett Brehm was convicted of one count of driving under the influence, (DUI), first 

offense by the County Court for Lancaster County. His conviction was affirmed by the District 

Court for Lancaster County. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the district court.

BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2013, Trooper Mark White was sitting in his patrol car at mile marker 397 

on Interstate 80. The lights in his car were off, and he was watching westbound traffic. At about 

2:11 a.m., White saw a white Mercedes pass and White noticed “that there was no license plate on 

the front of the vehicle.” White believed this was a traffic violation, drove after the Mercedes, and 

- 1 -
initiated a traffic stop. White made contact with the driver, later identified as Brehm, and explained 

the reason for the stop. Brehm advised White that his front license plate was located on the front 

dashboard of the vehicle on the passenger side, flush against the windshield. After contacting 

Brehm, White smelled “an odor of alcoholic beverage inside the vehicle,” and began a DUI 

investigation, which led to Brehm’s arrest for DUI.

Brehm was charged with DUI, first offense, a Class W misdemeanor. See Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 60-6,196 (Reissue 2010) and 60-6,197.03(1) (Supp. 2013). Brehm filed a motion to suppress 

on October 22, 2013, and requested a hearing to determine whether there was an articulable basis 

or reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. Brehm’s motion asserted that the evidence against him 

should be suppressed because it was obtained during an unconstitutional traffic stop.

A hearing on Brehm’s motion was held on December 16, 2013 in Lancaster county court. 

Brehm and White both testified at the hearing, and the court received a video of the traffic stop, 

copies of relevant statutes, and pictures of the car and license plate displayed within it. Brehm and 

White testified that the photographs were a true and accurate depiction of how the license plate 

was displayed on August 5, 2013. Brehm argued there was no traffic violation because the manner 

in which he displayed his license plate complied with the relevant statutes, and, as such, there was 

no probable cause for the stop.

The county court observed that the evidence showed Brehm’s license plate was “placed in 

the front window between the dash and the windshield” and that the relevant statutory language 

required it to be “prominently displayed at all times on the front of the motor vehicle.” The court 

concluded the windshield was not the front of the vehicle, and that the traffic stop was 

constitutional and was supported by probable cause, and therefore overruled Brehm’s motion to 

suppress.

A stipulated bench trial was held on January 30, 2014 and the court received the exhibits 

entered during the hearing on the motion to suppress. The court also received additional exhibits 

including the parties’ written trial stipulation and supporting documents. The trial stipulation 

contained a statement that a chemical test of Brehm’s breath was performed on the night of his 

arrest. The result was .138 of a gram of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Brehm renewed his 

objection to the constitutionality of the traffic stop. Brehm was found guilty of DUI and sentenced 

to 7 days in jail, a $500 fine, and a six-month license revocation.

On appeal to the district court, Brehm argued the county court erred in overruling his 

motion to suppress. Specifically he argued that the manner in which his license plate was displayed 

conformed to the statutes. The district court noted that even if the windshield was “the front of the 

vehicle” the license plate did not satisfy the other statutory requirements that the plate be “securely 

fastened,” “upright,” and “plainly visible.” The district court determined that the county court 

properly overruled Brehm’s motion to suppress and affirmed his conviction and sentence. Brehm 

timely appealed.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Brehm asserts the district court erred in determining his license plate was not properly 

displayed, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-399 (Reissue 2010) and § 60-3,100 (Cum. Supp. 

2014). He also asserts the district court erred in finding the trooper had reasonable suspicion and 

- 2 -
probable cause to conduct an investigatory stop of Brehm’s vehicle, and in affirming the judgment 

and sentence imposed by the county court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an 

intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error or 

abuse of discretion. State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (2014). Both the district court 

and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on 

the record. Id. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court’s 

inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is 

neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id. But an appellate court independently reviews 

questions of law in appeals from the county court. When deciding appeals from criminal 

convictions in county court, an appellate court applies the same standards of review that it applies 

to decide appeals from criminal convictions in district court. Id.

ANALYSIS

Brehm asserts the district court erred in affirming the county court’s judgment because the 

county court incorrectly overruled his motion to suppress. He argues that he had not committed a 

traffic violation, therefore the officer did not have reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Thus, 

he asserts the stop which led to his arrest and conviction was unconstitutional.

Trooper White testified that he initiated a traffic stop because he noticed “there was no 

license plate on the front of the vehicle.” Brehm asserts that, though his license plate was not 

affixed to the front bumper of the vehicle, the placement of the plate was in conformance with the 

statutes. His plate was wedged between the windshield and the dashboard of his vehicle on the 

passenger side. He asserts the plate was angled and flush against the windshield, as shown in

Exhibit 6.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-399(1) provides, that “In all cases, such license plates shall be securely 

fastened in an upright position to the motor vehicle or trailer so as to prevent such plates from 

swinging and at a minimum distance of twelve inches from the ground to the bottom of the license 

plate.” Section 60-399(2) also states that all “letters, numbers, printing, writing, and other 

identification marks upon such plates and certificate shall be kept clear and distinct and free from 

grease, dust, or other blurring matter, so that they shall be plainly visible at all times during daylight 

and under artificial light in the nighttime.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-3,100 provides, in relevant part, that “When two license plates are 

issued, one shall be prominently displayed at all times on the front and one on the rear of the 

registered motor vehicle or trailer.”

The county court’s order stated “It is this court’s opinion that the windshield is not the front 

of the vehicle. The front of the vehicle is where the front bumper is located.” In reviewing the 

county court’s order, the district court stated that even if it were to conclude that the windshield is 

the “front of the vehicle,” Brehm’s license plate was still not properly displayed. The district court 

noted the license plate was not upright, but rather at an angle, and therefore was not plainly visible 

at all times. Additionally, the license plate was not “securely fastened” to the vehicle and could be 

- 3 -
easily moved or covered by an occupant of the vehicle to prevent it from being visible to law 

enforcement.

In State v. Richardson, 17 Neb. App. 388, 763 N.W.2d 420 (2008), this court upheld the 

stop of a defendant whose license plate was “tucked in” between the windshield and dashboard, in 

the same manner Brehm displayed his plate. We concluded that this constituted an improper 

display of the front license plate in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-399 and 60-3100, thus the 

officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle. Id.

A traffic stop requires only that the stopping officer have specific and articulable facts 

sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is committing a 

crime. State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144, 846 N.W.2d 241 (2014). Reasonable suspicion entails some 

minimal level of objective justification for detention, something more than an inchoate and 

unparticularized hunch, but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. State v. 

Au, 285 Neb. 797, 829, N.W.2d 695 (2013). Although a traffic stop only requires reasonable 

suspicion, it is well established that a traffic violation, no matter how minor, creates probable cause 

to stop the driver of a vehicle. State v. Rover, 276 Neb. 173, 753 N.W.2d 333 (2008). Probable 

cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer would cause a reasonable cautious 

person to believe that the suspect has committed an offense; it does not demand any showing that 

this belief be correct or more likely true than false. State v. Beal, 21 Neb. App. 939, 846 N.W.2d 

282 (2014).

In Richardson, the officer had been able to see the plate in the windshield, but was unable 

to read the letters or numbers. Here, White was not able to observe a license plate on the front of 

Brehm’s vehicle when he drove past. White had reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation was 

committed, as he believed the driver had not displayed a front license plate at all, a clear violation 

of the statutes.

We find no error in the conclusion that the traffic stop was lawful, thus we find the district 

court did not err in affirming the county court’s decision to overrule Brehm’s motion to suppress. 

Therefore, we also find no error in the district court’s decision to affirm the judgment and sentence 

of the county court.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the order of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

- 4 -