- 436 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

In re Interest of Elainna R., a child

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, 

v. Elainna R., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 15, 2017. No. S-17-237.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings.

2. Ordinances: Appeal and Error. Interpretation of a municipal ordinance 

is a question of law, on which an appellate court reaches an independent 

conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.

3. Ordinances. Absent anything to the contrary, the language of a city 

ordinance is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

4. Statutes. Statutes relating to the same subject, although enacted at different times, are in pari materia and should be construed together.

5. Schools and School Districts: Disturbing the Peace. A school security 

officer or campus supervisor may be a victim of disturbing the peace.

6. Evidence: Proof. A finder of fact may draw reasonable inferences from 

the facts and circumstances proved.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster 

County: Linda S. Porter, Judge. Affirmed.

Joseph D. Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and 

Brittani E. Lewit for appellant.

Connor L. Reuter for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch, and

Funke, JJ., and Moore, Chief Judge.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

12/22/2017 01:10 AM CST
- 437 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

Funke, J.

The appellant, Elainna R., was adjudicated by the separate 

juvenile court of Lancaster County, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-247(1) (Reissue 2016), for violating a Lincoln city ordinance prohibiting disturbing the peace. The juvenile court 

found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Elainna knowingly 

or intentionally disturbed the peace of Sief Mahagoub, a high 

school security officer, by engaging in fighting. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2016, Elainna was attending Lincoln 

Southeast High School. On that day, she was involved in a 

fight with another student, A.L., in the hallway of the school. 

The named victim in this case, Mahagoub, is employed at the 

school as a campus supervisor and security officer and had 

been so employed for 4 years. His duties include maintaining 

safety and security on the school campus.

About 1:17 p.m., Mahagoub observed the two students 

yelling at each other. Elainna then angrily ran toward A.L. 

while Mahagoub attempted to stop the fight before it became 

physical.

Mahagoub yelled, “Stop, stop, stop,” in a loud, commanding 

voice and positioned himself between the students. Elainna, 

however, struck A.L.’s head and grabbed her hair. Mahagoub 

tried to separate the two, but Elainna maintained her grip on 

A.L.’s hair. Mahagoub continued to command Elainna to stop, 

and the three scuffled to the ground.

Mahagoub again yelled, “Stop” and “Let go.” With the help 

of another adult, Mahagoub separated the students. The incident lasted between 2 and 3 minutes.

Mahagoub testified that altercations like this are very common with students of that age, but said that this fight was 

disruptive to the workday. Mahagoub described the altercation 

as “very intense” and “very difficult” to stop. He described 

Elainna as the aggressor and observed her strike A.L. multiple 
- 438 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

times. After the altercation, Mahagoub observed hair on the 

floor that was consistent with A.L.’s hair.

Mahagoub stated he acted in accordance with his training, 

which instructed him to do as much as possible to prevent 

harm. On cross-examination, Mahagoub testified that he has 

trained as a military police officer and served three tours in 

Iraq. He further stated that the school provided him 2 full days 

of training for his role as a security officer and that he received 

specific training on how to deal with upset and aggressive 

students. He stated his job duties include breaking up fights 

between students.

According to Mahagoub, he has dealt with many fights during his time as campus supervisor, including students who were 

verbally and physically aggressive toward him. He also testified that he works with police officers in dealing with difficult 

students and occasionally assists law enforcement officers with 

investigations of criminal activity within the school.

An associate principal at Lincoln Southeast High School 

testified he witnessed the later portion of the fight after it had 

progressed to the floor. He observed Elainna holding the other 

student’s hair and Mahagoub’s attempts to separate them. He 

testified that the altercation was disruptive to the schoolday.

The juvenile petition alleged that “on or about the 17th day 

of November 2016, [Elainna] did knowingly or intentionally 

disturb the peace and quiet of . . . Mahagoub, by fighting, in 

violation of L.M.C. § 9.20.050.” Elainna entered a denial, and 

the matter proceeded to adjudication.

At the conclusion of the adjudication, the court found the 

State had proved the allegations in the petition beyond a reasonable doubt. The juvenile court continued final disposition 

of the case pending the completion of a predisposition report. 

Elainna perfected an appeal to this court.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Elainna assigns, restated, the following errors: (1) The juvenile court erred in determining that Mahagoub’s peace was 

disturbed as a school security officer or campus supervisor, 
- 439 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain an adjudication 

of jurisdiction under § 43-247(1).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the 

record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings.1

[2] Interpretation of a municipal ordinance is a question of 

law, on which we reach an independent conclusion irrespective 

of the determination made by the court below.2

ANALYSIS

We first consider whether, as a matter of law, an individual 

who engages in fighting can disturb the peace of a school 

security officer or campus supervisor. If we determine a person 

can disturb the peace of such a school official by fighting, we 

must consider whether the evidence in the record before the 

juvenile court supports an adjudication under § 43-247(1).

School Security Officer or

Campus Supervisor May Be

Victim of Disturbing Peace

The relevant portion of Lincoln’s disturbing the peace ordinance, Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.20.050 (2013), is as follows:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally 

or knowingly disturb the peace and quiet of any person, 

family, or neighborhood, or any public assembly, or 

assembly of persons for religious worship. The offense 

of disturbing the peace shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting.

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1322 (Reissue 2016), a person 

who intentionally disturbs the peace and quiet of any person, 

1 In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151, 887 N.W.2d 502 (2016).

2 Landrum v. City of Omaha Planning Bd., 297 Neb. 165, 899 N.W.2d 598 

(2017).
- 440 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

family, or neighborhood commits the offense of disturbing the 

peace. Disturbing the peace, like the common-law offense of 

breach of the peace, is a violation of public order.3 The offense 

generally includes violent acts and acts and words likely to 

produce violence in others.4

Elainna argues that Mahagoub is not a proper victim under 

Lincoln’s disturbing the peace ordinance and that she could 

not have disturbed his peace. Relying on decisions from other 

jurisdictions, she contends school safety officers, such as 

Mahagoub, should be treated the same as police officers, 

who she asserts have no expectation of peace and tranquility 

because of their training and duties.5

In support of her argument, Elainna cites to several cases 

which stand for the proposition that the direction of “fighting 

words” toward a police officer does not amount to a disturbance of the peace.6

 Elainna contends police officers frequently 

encounter offensive language and have been trained to diffuse such situations without physical retaliation, and therefore 

are not likely to act violently in response to offensive words 

or gestures.

The State argues Elainna’s position is contrary to settled 

Nebraska law. To support its argument, the State relies on several Nebraska cases.7

3 State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (1989) (citing State v. 

Coomes, 170 Neb. 298, 102 N.W.2d 454 (1960)).

4 Broadstone, supra note 3.

5 See, In re M.M., 54 Cal. 4th 530, 278 P.3d 1221, 142 Cal. Rptr. 869 

(2012); People v. Bowers, 77 Misc. 2d 697, 356 N.Y.S.2d 432 (1974).

6 H.N.P. v. State, 854 So. 2d 630 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003); People v. Slaton, 

24 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 322 N.E.2d 553 (1974). See, also, Chaplinsky v. New 

Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942); State v. 

Drahota, 280 Neb. 627, 788 N.W.2d 796 (2010).

7 State v. Moore, 226 Neb. 347, 411 N.W.2d 345 (1987); State v. Groves, 

219 Neb. 382, 363 N.W.2d 507 (1985); State v. Boss, 195 Neb. 467, 238 

N.W.2d 639 (1976).
- 441 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

In State v. Boss,

8

 we affirmed a conviction for abusing or 

resisting an officer in the execution of his office. In Boss, a 

police officer pulled over a speeding motorist and obtained 

his license and registration. During this process, the motorist called the officer a “‘dirty son-of-a-bitch.’”9

 We found 

the words used by the motorist were “fighting words.”10 We 

specifically rejected authorities which held that such language 

cannot constitute “fighting words” when directed to a police 

officer, who is trained to accept such abuse without violent reaction.11

Similarly, in State v. Groves,

12 we affirmed a conviction 

for disorderly conduct under a city of Omaha ordinance, and 

again specifically rejected the argument that a police officer 

is less susceptible to such abuse than other members of the 

general public.

In State v. Moore,

13 we affirmed a conviction for disturbing the peace under a Lincoln ordinance. In Moore, a Lincoln 

police officer responded to a complaint of a disturbance at a 

house. The officer encountered a loud house party and shined 

his cruiser’s spotlight on the front of the house, where individuals were standing in the dark. The defendant ran up to the 

cruiser and yelled, “‘What the fuck are you doing here? You’ve 

got no business here. Get the fuck out of here.’”14 The officer 

testified that the defendant

“continued to yell at me and I finished getting out of my 

cruiser and he was right up in my face. It was difficult 

to get out of my car, in fact. And I explained or tried to 

8 Boss, supra note 7.

9 Id. at 469, 238 N.W.2d at 642.

10 Id. at 471, 238 N.W.2d at 643.

11 Id.

12 Groves, supra note 7.

13 Moore, supra note 7.

14 Id. at 348, 411 N.W.2d at 347.
- 442 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

explain to the defendant that I was there on a disturbance 

call which seemed to even make him madder. . . .”15

We affirmed the defendant’s conviction in Moore based on 

the totality of his conduct while in the officer’s presence.16

Accordingly, it is clear that in Nebraska, a police officer may 

be the victim of disturbing the peace.

[3,4] Absent anything to the contrary, this court will give 

the language of a city ordinance its plain and ordinary meaning.17 Statutes relating to the same subject, although enacted 

at different times, are in pari materia and should be construed together.18

The applicable Lincoln ordinance states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or knowingly disturb the 

peace and quiet of any person . . . .”19 The Lincoln ordinance 

is broadly written and does not differentiate between public 

officials and the general public.

In State v. McNair,

20 for the purpose of analyzing a city of 

Omaha ordinance in a disturbance of lawful assembly case, 

we defined “disturb” to mean “‘[t]o throw into disorder or 

confusion; to interrupt the settled state of.’” Section 9.20.050 

of the Lincoln Municipal Code covers the same subject matter as the ordinance in McNair. As a result, the definition of 

“disturb” from McNair equally applies to Lincoln Mun. Code 

§ 9.20.050.

[5] Assuming, without deciding, that Mahagoub’s role as 

a school security officer and campus supervisor is equivalent 

to a police officer for purposes of Lincoln’s disturbing the 

15 Id.

16 Moore, supra note 7.

17 Brunken v. Board of Trustees, 261 Neb. 626, 624 N.W.2d 629 (2001).

18 D.I. v. Gibson, 295 Neb. 903, 890 N.W.2d 506 (2017); Northwest High 

School Dist. No. 82 v. Hessel, 210 Neb. 219, 313 N.W.2d 656 (1981).

19 Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.20.050(a) (emphasis supplied).

20 State v. McNair, 178 Neb. 763, 766, 135 N.W.2d 463, 465 (1965).
- 443 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

peace ordinance, we hold that a school security officer or campus supervisor may be a victim of disturbing the peace.

Evidence Supports Adjudication

Under § 43-247(1)

When an adjudication is based upon § 43-247(1), the allegations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.21

Elainna argues there is no evidence that she used “fighting words” against Mahagoub. Upon our de novo review, 

we agree. But it does not follow that Elainna did not disturb 

Mahagoub’s peace. The State argues Elainna’s conduct went 

beyond words and included engaging in an actual fight which 

necessitated Mahagoub’s physical involvement.

Indeed, the degree to which Elainna disturbed Mahagoub’s 

peace can be measured by her actions following his command 

to stop. Elainna passed through Mahagoub’s outstretched arm 

to hit A.L. in the head and grab her hair. As Mahagoub continued to attempt to stop Elainna, Elainna further struck A.L. 

Elainna’s grip on A.L.’s hair was so forceful it brought both 

students and Mahagoub to the ground.

As the juvenile court said in its factual findings,

A campus supervisor, I think, does have some — part 

of their job is to keep the peace and regulate the safety of 

students, but a situation where a fight occurs, and there 

was evidence that Elainna was certainly an aggressor in 

that fight, that causes a school security officer to end up 

between youth and end up on the floor trying to prevent 

— trying to get one youth to release the hair of another 

youth and interrupt the fight, I think I can infer some disturbance of his peace.

[6] A finder of fact may draw reasonable inferences from 

the facts and circumstances proved.22 Accordingly, we agree 

21 In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239, 728 N.W.2d 606 (2007); Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-279(2) (Reissue 2016).

22 Jindra v. Clayton, 247 Neb. 597, 529 N.W.2d 523 (1995). See, also, State 

v. Babbitt, 277 Neb. 327, 762 N.W.2d 58 (2009).
- 444 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ELAINNA R.

Cite as 298 Neb. 436

with the reasoning of the juvenile court. Mahagoub described 

his efforts to prevent and stop the fight and how difficult it 

was during the 2- to 3-minute incident. This evidence establishes that Elainna’s actions threw Mahagoub’s peace and 

quiet into disorder, confusion, interruption, or an unsettled 

state. We find the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Elainna disturbed the peace of Mahagoub by engaging 

in fighting.

CONCLUSION

We conclude Mahagoub, a school security officer and campus supervisor, may be an appropriate victim of disturbing the 

peace. Upon our de novo review, we independently find the 

evidence adduced sufficiently supports the juvenile court’s 

adjudication under § 43-247(1).

Affirmed.

Wright, J., not participating.