IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(Memorandum Web Opinion)

BOPPRE V. OVERMAN

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).

JEFF BOPPRE, APPELLANT,

V.

MARK OVERMAN, SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY SHERIFF, APPELLEE.

Filed November 22, 2016. No. A-15-1135.

Appeal from the District Court for Scotts Bluff County: RANDALL L. LIPPSTREU, Judge. 

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded with directions.

Jeff Boppre, pro se.

Dave Eubanks, Scotts Bluff County Attorney, for appellee.

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

BISHOP, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Jeff Boppre, an inmate at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, sent public records 

request letters to Scotts Bluff County Sheriff Mark Overman under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712 

(Reissue 2014), seeking records related to two murders that Boppre was convicted of committing, 

as well as records related to the deaths of two other individuals. Boppre’s requests were mostly 

denied, and he sought a writ of mandamus from the district court for Scotts Bluff County. Boppre’s 

petition for writ of mandamus was sustained in part and denied in part. Boppre appealed the district 

court’s decision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, and in part reverse and remand 

with directions.

- 1 -
II. BACKGROUND

Boppre sent a letter to Overman dated March 14, 2015, wherein Boppre requested copies 

of various “public records” pursuant to § 84-712. Boppre set forth 20 separately numbered 

paragraphs containing his requests for copies of various documents, records, photographs, 

evidence, and other items related to “the Valdez & Condon murders where Jeff Boppre was 

wrongly convicted.” We have set forth the contents of Boppre’s 20 separately numbered 

paragraphs in full in appendix A, which is attached to our opinion. In response to Boppre’s 

requests, Overman sent a letter to Boppre stating, “Investigative records are not subject to the 

public records request that you have filed.” Overman further stated, “To the best of my knowledge, 

everything that you have requested that is in the custody of law enforcement has been turned over 

to your attorneys.” Overman’s responses are incorporated into appendix A.

On April 6, 2015, Boppre filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” asking the court 

to issue an order compelling Overman to “release all requested documents, records and any other 

evidence held in custody or in the Scottsbluff [C]ounty, pursuant to the Nebraska Public Records 

[L]aw.” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712 et seq. (Reissue 2014) (public records statutes). Boppre 

referenced and incorporated into his petition his letter to Overman dated March 14, 2015. He also 

attached the letter Overman sent in response. Boppre alleged that Overman’s response was not in 

compliance with § 84-712.04. He also asked the court to enforce the penalty provisions of 

§ 84-712.09 against Overman for his violations of the public records statutes.

In his answer filed on April 23, 2015, Overman generally denied Boppre’s allegations, 

stating that specific requests by Boppre were statutorily exempt from public access. Overman 

claimed other items requested by Boppre were previously provided to Boppre’s various attorneys 

over the last 27 years, or were items not in the possession of or otherwise available to Overman. 

Overman’s responses are incorporated into appendix A.

Boppre sent another letter to Overman dated April 23, 2015, wherein Boppre requested 

copies of more “public records” pursuant to § 84-712. Boppre set forth 40 separately numbered 

paragraphs containing his requests for copies of various documents, records, photographs, 

evidence, and other items related to the Valdez and Condon murders, the death of Dolores Boppre, 

the death of Steven Schlothauer, and “Joe Richter who was shot in the head.” We have set forth 

the contents of Boppre’s 40 separately numbered paragraphs in full in appendix B, which is 

attached to our opinion. In response to Boppre’s requests, Overman sent a letter to Boppre 

individually addressing each of his 40 requests. With regard to some of the requests, Overman 

stated “[w]e are providing you with the public record portion of the report.” With regard to the 

remaining requests, Overman gave variations of the following: “[w]e have no such records”; “[t]he 

reports requested are not public record”; or “all of the requested items have been turned over to 

your attorneys through the discovery process, and witnesses testified to the circumstances at trial. 

The trial transcript is available to you through your attorneys.” Overman’s responses are 

incorporated into appendix B.

On April 27, 2015, Boppre filed a “motion for depositions,” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 29-1917 (Cum. Supp. 2014) (allowing for depositions of witnesses in felony prosecutions). 

Boppre asked that the court permit him to take the depositions of several people he believed had 

- 2 -
testimony which “may be material or relevant” to the mandamus action. He alleged that the 

evidence the individuals would provide to the court “is relevant to the wrongful conviction of 

[Boppre] for the past 27 years and is significant to obtain the requested information that Defendant 

Mark Overman has waived his right to argue the release of all information.”

On June 29, 2015, Boppre filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus asking the court 

to issue an order compelling Overman to “release all requested documents, records and any other 

evidence held in custody or in the Scottsbluff [C]ounty, pursuant to the Nebraska Public Records 

[L]aw.” Boppre referenced and attached his letters to Overman dated March 14 and April 23, as 

well as the letters Overman sent to Boppre in response. Boppre again alleged that Overman’s 

responses were not in compliance with § 84-712.04. He also asked the court to enforce the penalty 

provisions of § 84-712.09 against Overman for his violations of the public records statutes.

A hearing was held on October 14, 2015. The court received into evidence the letters from 

Boppre to Overman dated March 14 and April 23, as well as the letters Overman sent to Boppre 

in response. The court also received into evidence Boppre’s “motion to offer evidence at October 

14th hearing for writ of mandamus” with six attachments (various motions, journal entries, and 

documents from his criminal case). Boppre called one witness, a lieutenant with the Scotts Bluff 

County Sheriff’s Office. However, the district court sustained the State’s objections to most of 

Boppre’s questions because they went to the merits of Boppre’s claims that he was “wrongfully 

convicted” rather than whether or not the writ of mandamus should be issued.

In a “Memorandum Order” filed on November 17, 2015, the district court denied Boppre’s 

motion to take depositions. The court then addressed the merits of Boppre’s amended petition for 

writ of mandamus and found that most of the requested records were exempt investigatory records. 

The court said:

[I]t is abundantly clear Boppre’s mandamus action seeks documents directly related to the 

Condon/Valdez murder investigation and the 1992 investigation of Dolores Boppre’s 

death. It is equally clear such documents generally fall within the plain and ordinary 

meaning of the Section 84-712.05(5) exception because they are records developed or 

received by law enforcement agencies as part of an investigation. That is true even where 

the investigation was against Boppre. See Sileven v. Spire, 243 Neb. 451 (1993) (Section 

84-712 applies equally to all persons).

The court notes that the disclosure of public records pursuant to Sections 84-712 et 

seq. is markedly different from discovery of evidence under the Nebraska criminal 

procedure statutes, Sections 29-1912 et seq.

(Emphasis in original).

The district court then made the following findings. With respect to Boppre’s March 14, 

2015, request for documents (see appendix A):

I. Requests numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are 

exempt from disclosure as records developed or received as part of an investigation 

pursuant to Section 84-712.05(5).

II. Requests numbered 6, 8, and 18 represent routine administrative or oversight 

activities rather than a focused inquiry into specific law violations. If Overman is 

- 3 -
in possession of any such documents, then copies shall be provided to Boppre free 

of charge within 10 days. If Overman does not possess those documents that fact 

shall also be disclosed to Boppre within 10 days of the date of this Order.

With respect to Boppre’s April 23, 2015, request for documents (see appendix B):

III. Requests numbered 1, 3, 4, 9, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 (in part), 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 36, and 

37 are exempt from disclosure as records developed or received as part of an 

investigation pursuant to Section 84-712.05(5).

IV. Overman appropriately responded to requests numbered 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 35, 38, 39, and 40.

V. If Overman is in possession of any documents identified in Requests numbered 31 

and 32 he shall provide Boppre with a copy within 10 days of the date of this order. 

If Overman does not possess those documents that fact shall also be disclosed to 

Boppre within 10 days of the date of this Order.

The district court noted:

Ruling on the aforementioned matters was made difficult by both parties’ apparent 

confusion between the right to access public records and criminal procedure discovery 

statutes; Boppre’s status as both a citizen of this State and the focus of the underlying 

criminal investigation; Boppre’s attempts to insert interrogatories into the request for 

documents; and Boppre’s confusion that Overman should possess documents and records 

of governmental offices and agencies other than the Sheriff’s Office.

In accordance with its above findings, the district court partially sustained and partially overruled 

Boppre’s amended petition for a writ of mandamus. Boppre now appeals.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Restated, Boppre assigns that the district court erred by: (1) denying his motion to take 

depositions; (2) not granting the writ of mandamus in full or, alternatively, granting an alternative 

writ of mandamus before denying the writ in part; (3) finding the requested documents were 

exempt from disclosure because they were investigatory in nature; (4) not determining what 

documents were segregable pursuant to § 84-712.06; and (5) not holding Overman accountable for 

violating the public records statutes.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus is a law action, and it has been defined as an extraordinary remedy, not a writ 

of right. In a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury 

verdict. An appellate court will not disturb those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 

Whether to grant a writ of mandamus is within the trial court’s discretion. State ex rel. Unger v. 

State, 293 Neb. 549, 878 N.W.2d 540 (2016).

- 4 -
V. ANALYSIS

1. MOTION FOR DEPOSITIONS

Boppre argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to take depositions of 

relevant witnesses. Boppre’s reliance on State ex rel. Stivrins v. Flowers, 273 Neb. 336, 729 

N.W.2d 311 (2007), and State ex rel. Acme Rug Cleaner v. Likes, 256 Neb. 34, 588 N.W.2d 783 

(1999), in support of his argument is misplaced. Both of these cases allowed the issuance of a writ 

of mandamus to limit discovery in an underlying action; the cases do not stand for the proposition 

that discovery is allowed in a mandamus action.

Boppre filed his “motion for depositions,” pursuant to § 29-1917. In denying Boppre’s 

motion, the district court stated that § 29-1917 is part of the Nebraska Criminal Procedure and is 

not applicable to a mandamus action. We agree. We find no provision in the public records statutes 

which allows for the taking of depositions; we affirm the decision of the district court to deny 

Boppre’s motion to take depositions.

2. WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(a) Law in General

In this case, Boppre seeks access to various “public records.” Nebraska’s public records 

statutes can be found at § 84-712 et seq. Section 84-712(1) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise 

expressly provided by statute, all citizens of this state and all other persons interested in the 

examination of the public records as defined in section 84-712.01 are hereby fully empowered and 

authorized” to examine such records. The phrase “public records” is defined by § 84-712.01(1), 

which provides in part:

Except when any other statute expressly provides that particular information or records 

shall not be made public, public records shall include all records and documents, regardless 

of physical form, of or belonging to this state, any county, city, village, political 

subdivision, or tax-supported district in this state, or any agency, branch, department, 

board, bureau, commission, council, subunit, or committee of any of the foregoing.

Section 84-712.05 sets forth certain categories of records “which may be withheld from the 

public.” See, also, § 84-712.08 (federal government exception). A person denied access to a public 

record may elect to file for speedy relief by a writ of mandamus. § 84-712.03.

Traditionally, “mandamus” was a law action and was defined as an extraordinary remedy, 

not a writ of right, issued to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act or duty, imposed 

by law upon an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, where (1) the relator has a clear 

right to the relief sought, (2) there is a corresponding clear duty existing on the part of the 

respondent to perform the act, and (3) there is no other plain and adequate remedy available in the 

ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Adams Cty. Historical Soc. v. Kinyoun, 277 Neb. 749, 765 

N.W.2d 212 (2009). See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2157 (Reissue 2008) (writ of mandamus may 

not be issued in any case where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 

law).

- 5 -
A party seeking a writ of mandamus under § 84-712.03 has the burden to satisfy three 

elements: (1) The requesting party is a citizen of the state or other person interested in the 

examination of the public records, (2) the document sought is a public record as defined by 

§ 84-712.01, and (3) the requesting party has been denied access to the public record as guaranteed 

by § 84-712. Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842, 885 N.W.2d 44 (2016). If the 

requesting party satisfies its prima facie claim for release of public records, the public body 

opposing disclosure must show by clear and convincing evidence that § 84-712.05 or § 84-712.08 

exempts the records from disclosure. Id. See, also, § 84-712.03 (burden upon public body to 

demonstrate reason to withhold requested records).

There appears to be no dispute in this case that Boppre satisfied his prima facie claim for 

release of public records. Thus, the only remaining question is whether Overman showed by clear 

and convincing evidence that the requested records were exempt from disclosure.

In denying Boppre’s requests, Overman relied on § 84-712.05(5) which exempts 

investigatory records from disclosure. Section 84-712.05 provides in relevant part as follows:

The following records, unless publicly disclosed in an open court, open 

administrative proceeding, or open meeting or disclosed by a public entity pursuant to its 

duties, may be withheld from the public by the lawful custodian of the records:

. . . .

(5) Records developed or received by law enforcement agencies and other public 

bodies charged with duties of investigation or examination of persons, institutions, or 

businesses, when the records constitute a part of the examination, investigation, 

intelligence information, citizen complaints or inquiries, informant identification, or 

strategic or tactical information used in law enforcement training . . . .

A public record is an investigatory record where (1) the activity giving rise to the document sought 

is related to the duty of investigation or examination with which the public body is charged and 

(2) the relationship between the investigation or examination and that public body’s duty to 

investigate or examine supports a colorable claim of rationality. State ex rel. Neb. Health Care 

Assn v. Dept. of Health, 255 Neb. 784, 587 N.W.2d 100 (1998). Furthermore, a distinction must 

be drawn between (1) routine administration or oversight activities and (2) focused inquiries into 

specific violations of law. Id. If a document is compiled ancillary to an agency’s administrative 

function, then it is not protected from disclosure; when, however, an inquiry by an administrative 

agency departs from the routine and focuses with special intensity on a particular party, an 

investigation is underway for purposes of the investigatory records exception. Id.

Finally, § 84-712.06 provides that “any reasonably segregable public portion of a record 

shall be provided to the public as a public record upon request after deletion of the portions which 

may be withheld.”

With the above information in mind, we now review the district court’s decision. The State 

offered no position as to the specific claims made by Boppre; its brief contains only one page of 

argument and generally claims, without any discussion of the specific public record requests, that 

the district court “did not err in ruling that certain requested items were exempt from disclosure by 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.05(5).” Brief for appellee at 3.

- 6 -
(b) Requests From March 14, 2015

We first address Boppre’s March 14, 2015, request for documents. See appendix A (to aid 

the reader, we have incorporated into the appendix Overman’s responses, as well as the 

dispositions of both the district court and this court). The district court granted the requests in 

paragraphs numbered 6, 8, and 18. Accordingly, those requests are not at issue on appeal.

The district court found that the remaining requests were “exempt from disclosure as 

records developed or received as part of an investigation” pursuant to § 84-712.05(5). We agree 

that the majority of Boppre’s requests were clearly investigatory in nature. However, we must be 

mindful that the requested records would not be exempt under § 84-712.05(5) if they were publicly 

disclosed in an open court. And we do not know what, if any, of the records requested by Boppre 

were publicly disclosed in an open court. Regardless, we find that the district court properly denied 

the writ of mandamus with respect to the requests in paragraphs 1-5, 7, 11-17, and 19-20, as we 

now explain.

As stated previously, a writ of mandamus may not be issued in any case where there is a 

plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. § 25-2157. In his answer, in addition 

to claiming the investigatory exemption, Overman stated that several of the records Boppre 

requested were items available through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously 

provided to Boppre and his various attorneys over the last 27 years. Overman stated that additional 

records (in paragraphs 2 and 16, for example) were likely available via other sources such as the 

court reporter or the district court. Thus, Boppre had another adequate remedy to access the 

requested records (e.g., through his attorneys or in the criminal court proceedings). Accordingly, 

the requested records in paragraphs 1-5, 7, 11-17, and 19-20 were either exempt as investigatory 

in nature (§ 84-712.05(5)), or there was another adequate remedy available to Boppre. Based on 

slightly different reasoning, we affirm the district court’s denial of the writ in regards to paragraphs 

1-5, 7, 11-17, and 19-20. Lindsay v. Fitl, 293 Neb. 677, 879 N.W.2d 385 (2016) (where record 

demonstrates that decision of trial court is ultimately correct, although such correctness is based 

on ground or reason different from that assigned by trial court, appellate court will affirm).

With respect to the records requested in paragraphs 9 and 10, we affirm, in part, the district 

court’s denial of the writ of mandamus for the same reasons as above--investigatory in nature or 

availability of another adequate remedy. However, the writ of mandamus should have been granted 

with respect to those portions of paragraphs 9 and 10 that involve the expenditure of public funds. 

See § 84-712.01(3) (§§ 84-712 to 84-712.03 shall be liberally construed whenever the expenditure 

of public funds is involved). See, also, Evertson v. City of Kimball, 278 Neb. 1, 767 N.W.2d 751 

(2009) (noting same). Specifically, we reverse the district court’s denial of the writ of mandamus 

with respect to the portion of paragraph 9 seeking the expense records for motel, food, and gas. 

We also reverse the denial of the writ of mandamus with respect to the portion of paragraph 10 

seeking expense records for the jail stay. We remand the matter to the district court with directions 

to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Overman to provide Boppre with such documents if he is in 

possession of them, and if Overman does not possess those documents to disclose that fact to 

Boppre.

- 7 -
Although we have found that the public records statutes allow Boppre to have access to the 

expense records for motel, food, and gas, and the expense records for the jail stay, we can discern 

no reasonable basis for his request. The information in the expense records is hardly the kind that 

would aid Boppre in his quest to show that he was “wrongly convicted,” and we see no other 

reason for wanting the information. However, the Nebraska public records statutes, as they 

currently exist, do not limit Boppre’s access to such records. But, see, Giarratano v. Johnson, 456 

F. Supp. 2d 747 (W.D. Va. 2006), aff’d, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (statutory exclusion of 

prisoners from making requests for public records under Virginia Freedom of Information Act 

constitutional; Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3703); Burt v. Washington State Dep’t of Corr., 168 Wash. 

2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010), as corrected (Sept. 14, 2010) (Washington legislature has enacted 

legislation that will greatly curtail abusive prisoner requests for public records; Wash. Rev. Code 

Ann. 42.56.565); Revere v. Canulette, 715 So. 2d 47 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1998) writ granted in part 

and remanded, 730 So. 2d 870 (La. 1999) (public records law statute limiting inmates’ access to 

copies of matters in the public record did not violate Federal or State Constitution; La. Stat. Ann. 

§ 44:31.1); Rosenthal v. Hansen, 34 Cal. App. 3d 754, 110 Cal. Rptr. 257 (Ca. App. 1973) (under 

California Public Records Act, persons may secure copies of specific documents but the various 

public departments may impose reasonable restrictions on general requests for voluminous classes 

of documents restricting copies to specific requests for copies of specific documents; implied rule 

of reasonableness).

(c) Requests From April 23, 2015

We next address Boppre’s April 23, 2015, request for documents. See appendix B (to aid 

the reader, we have incorporated into the appendix Overman’s responses, as well as the 

dispositions of both the district court and this court). The district court granted the requests 

numbered 31 and 32. Accordingly, those requests are not at issue on appeal.

The district court found that the requests in 1, 3-4, 9, 17-19, 21, 22 (in part), 27-30, 34, and 

36-37 were “exempt from disclosure as records developed or received as part of an investigation”

pursuant to § 84-712.05(5). We agree that the majority of Boppre’s requests were clearly 

investigatory in nature. Again, we must be mindful that the requested records would not be exempt 

under § 84-712.05(5) if they were publicly disclosed in an open court. But we do not know what, 

if any, of the records requested by Boppre were publicly disclosed in an open court. Regardless, 

we find that the district court properly denied the writ of mandamus with respect to the requests in 

paragraphs 1, 3-4, 9, 17-19, 21, 22, 27-30, 34, and 36-37. The requested records in these paragraphs 

were either exempt as investigatory in nature via § 84-712.05(5), or there was another adequate 

remedy available to Boppre (e.g., documents related to the Valdez/Condon murders were 

previously provided to Boppre’s various attorneys). Based on slightly different reasoning, we 

affirm the district court’s denial of the writ of mandamus with respect to paragraphs 1, 3-4, 9, 

17-19, 21, 22, 27-30, 34, and 36-37. Lindsay v. Fitl, supra (where record demonstrates that 

decision of trial court is ultimately correct, although such correctness is based on ground or reason 

different from that assigned by trial court, appellate court will affirm).

The district court found that Overman properly responded to the requests in paragraphs 2, 

5-8, 10-16, 20, 22, 23-26, 33, 35, and 38-40. We agree with the district court’s findings, except 

- 8 -
with respect to paragraph 20 as discussed below. Again, some of the records were investigatory in 

nature and exempt via § 84-712.05(5), or there was another adequate remedy available to Boppre. 

Additionally, the sheriff stated he did not have many of the requested records, and we acknowledge 

that his office would not be expected to have many of the records (e.g., records from departments 

other than Sheriff’s department). We affirm the district court’s denial of the writ in regards to 

paragraphs 2, 5-8, 10-16, 22, 23-26, 33, 35, and 38-40.

With respect to paragraph 20, Boppre requested the “criminal history” for numerous

specified individuals. Overman’s response was that “[w]e have no such records.” However, as 

noted in Boppre’s request, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3520 (Reissue 2008) states that “Complete 

criminal history record information maintained by a criminal justice agency shall be a public record 

open to inspection and copying by any person during normal business hours.” Further, Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 29-3522 (Reissue 2008), states that if the requested criminal justice history record is not in 

the custody or control of the person to whom application is made, such person shall notify the 

applicant and state the agency, if known, which has custody or control of the record in question. 

We reverse the district court’s denial of the writ with respect to paragraph 20, and we remand the 

matter to the district court with directions to issue an alternative writ of mandamus ordering 

Overman to show cause why he cannot provide Boppre with such documents, or at least notify 

Boppre which agency has custody or control of such records. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2158 

(Reissue 2008) (writ is either alternative or peremptory; alternative writ commands defendant to 

do the act required or show cause why he has not done so; peremptory writ simply commands 

defendant to do the act required).

(d) Remaining Assignments of Error

We have already determined that on their face, the requested records, with a few exceptions 

as noted above, were properly denied because they were clearly investigatory in nature or because 

another adequate remedy was available to Boppre. Accordingly, Boppre’s remaining assignments 

of error--that the district court erred by not determining what documents were segregable, and by 

not holding Overman accountable for violating the public records statutes--need not be addressed. 

See Gray v. Kenney, 290 Neb. 888, 863 N.W.2d 127 (2015) (appellate court not obligated to 

engage in analysis not necessary to adjudicate case and controversy before it).

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Boppre’s amended petition for writ of mandamus with respect to paragraphs, 1-5, 7, 

11-17, and 19-20 of the letter dated March 14, 2015. We further find that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Boppre’s amended petition for writ of mandamus with respect to 

paragraphs 1-19, 21-30, and 33-40 of the letter dated April 23, 2015.

However, we reverse the denial of the writ of mandamus with respect to the portions of 

paragraphs 9 and 10 of the letter dated March 14, 2015, seeking expense records for motel, food, 

gas, and the jail stay. And we remand the matter to the district court with directions to issue a 

peremptory writ of mandamus ordering Overman to provide Boppre with such documents if he is 

- 9 -
in possession of them, and if Overman does not possess those documents to disclose that fact to 

Boppre.

We further reverse the district court’s denial of the writ of mandamus with respect to 

paragraph 20 of the letter dated April 23, 2015. And we remand the matter to the district court with 

directions to issue an alternative writ of mandamus ordering Overman show cause why he cannot 

provide Boppre with the criminal history records, or at least notify Boppre which agency has 

custody or control of such records.

AFFIRMED IN PART, AND IN PART REVERSED

AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

- 10 -
APPENDIX A

In his letter to Overman dated March 14, 2015, Boppre set forth 20 separately numbered 

paragraphs requesting copies of various “public records” pursuant to § 84-712. We quote Boppre’s

requests verbatim including grammatical, typographical, and spelling errors. The bracketed 

information following each request summarizes the disposition of the request.

1. The original 911 call made by Eddie Johnson to the Scottsbluff Police Department on

September 19th 1988 at approximately 11:15a.m to report the murder of Valdez and 

Condon.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

2. The search of the Wasmer Trailer and all names who participated in this search, and the 

warrant and who signed it? The affidavit to obtain warrant;

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, and also claimed the search warrant file 

was available in a district court filing and had been previously provided to Boppre by his 

various attorneys. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the 

records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

3. The photo of the gun blue steel automatic pistol seized from the wasmer trailer on 

September 22, 1988 at aproximately 2310, All photo’s of evidence seized from the trailer 

which should include the following item #71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78-Bag of marijuana, 

How much? 79-gun, 80.81,82,83,84.

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre by his various 

attorneys. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

4. All latent fingerprints collected by Jim Larson on September 19th 1988 from the valdez 

resident which includes property tag #’s 29,31,32,33,34,35,36 specifically #33 that had a 

sufficient value for comparison purposes, but never identified to anyone, Would like all 

cards of latent fingerprints collected.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

- 11 -
5. All documentation and records of why the property tags were changed during the 

investigation and trial, and who authorized this kind of conduct? What is the normal 

procedures or is this only Scottsbluff countys procedures.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

6. All documents of the amount that Leonard Tabor was paid to represent Boppre through-out 

his case including the appeal process to the Nebraska Supreme court.

[Writ of mandamus granted by the district court.]

7. All investigator’s written reports and documents, throughout the investigation of the 

Valdez/Condon murder which should include reports by Richard Blaha, Jim Lawson, Burt 

Rogers, Jack Medearis, Vern Hessler, Ray Huffman, Mark Overman, Alex Moreno, Rick 

Spencer, Robert Kinsey, J.G. Robinson, Gary Renner, Bob Rader, Sheriff Chuck 

Fairbanks, Ken Stute, and all other reports by any officers, state patrol, Sheriff’s officers, 

police officers involved with this investigation that wrote any reports.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

8. All documents and logs of the custodian in charge of all evidence during the period of 

September 1988 to March 1995, and whom had authority to enter and log in evidence on 

October 17th 1988.

[Writ of mandamus granted by the district court.]

9. All logs, Documents, reports, orders of Travel order taken by Alex Moreno, investigator 

Rick Spencer, Investigator Gary Renner, to Gallup New Mexico with William A. Niemann 

and Kenard Wasmer on October 12, 1988, which should include, Who authorized this 

order?, all Bills and motel name where stayed, food expenses, Gas expenses, Mileage 

traveled, Times which all arrived back to Scottsbluff county.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

- 12 -
that the records, except for the expense records, are either investigatory or there is another 

adequate remedy available; writ of mandamus should issue for the expense records.]

10. All documents and logs of Jail records where William A. Niemann was housed on October 

12, 1988, and Kenard Wasmer while on trip to Gallup New Mexico which the documents 

should reflect, The name of the Jail and Town, Booking records, Time he was booked in 

and released, Time returned back to Nebraska, Amount of the Jail stay? Who paid for stay 

and receipt of such. Was Gallup New Mexico authorities notified per law of the present of 

a search of a weapon in there state, if so all documents support there assistances. The 

booking process and procedures of the above prisoners booked into the Jail.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records, except for the expense records, are either investigatory or there is another 

adequate remedy available; writ of mandamus should issue for the expense records.]

[Requests 11-15 all have the same bracketed response, which is provided following request 

15.]

11. The written reports by Gary Renner of the Time, place when he alleged to have found a 

weapon in Gallup New Mexico in a mud hole without a metal detector, and the chain of 

custody of the weapon.

12. All logs, reports, Documents ,procedures and protocol that Law enforcement by law must 

follow when entering out of state jurisdiction when working on a case, to obtain evidence, 

Need all reports , documents, logs of the procedures and law followed when Alex Moreno, 

Rick Spencer, and Gary Renner transported William A. Niemann and Kenard Wasmer to 

Gallup New Mexico to search for evidence. Need who was contacted in Gallup New 

Mexico for assistances in Law enforcement, Names of all people involved from New 

Mexico, and all procedures followed.

13. All documents, logs. reports of why Alex Moreno never turned in the weapon into the 

evidence locker until 90 hours after the alleged find, Written report of the weapon being 

found on October 13th, but not turned in until monday 17th 1988, Need to know the 

protocol. Where the weapon was held for this period, Chain of custody, and why was it 

held.

14. All reports, interviews, documents, audio recordings with William A. Niemann and Kenard 

Wasmer from September 22, 1988 thur March 1995 by Brian Silverman, Doug Warner, 

Alex Moreno, Gary Renner, Jack Robinson, Mark Overman, and any other Law 

enforcement officers in regards to the Valdez/Condon murders. This should include any 

- 13 -
and all interviews obtained, All audio recording interviews, all conversations that took 

place between these two individuals and law Enforcement officers.

15. All reports, interviews, documents, affidavits, audio recordings, transfer orders of melissa 

Moreno. This should include all interviews held by Law Enforcement officers between the 

time of september 1988 to September 2014, All threats made towards Melissa in regards 

to her statement by Jack Robinson, all interviews held at the State Patrols office, 

Documents of her being Placed into foster care during the Boppre Trial, All Criminal 

checks made by Brian silverman and in his file of knowing she was a eye witness of the 

murders. All interviews made by Alex Moreno, Pete Moreno, Gary Renner, Brian 

Silverman, and Doug Warner. The copy of the signed certificate of needs for Melissa 

Moreno as a witness on 5-11-92. The interview and Knowledge of Melissa Moreno on 

September 22, 1988 and the reason Law enforcement withheld her from Boppre at trial.

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

16. All affidavits for change of venue in regards to the scottsbluff residents saying that Boppre 

would never get a fair trial, there is 38 affidavits in the sheriff custody.

[Overman claimed the records were not in his custody; said they were likely offered into 

evidence and the court reporter would have them, otherwise Boppre’s attorney should have 

copies. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records are 

not investigatory, but that there is another adequate remedy available to Boppre.]

17. All photos taken in regards to the Valdez/Condon murders, which should include the 214 

in the murder book, All autopsy photo’s taken during that procedure by Mark Overman. 

There is approximately 300 photo’s which is in the custody of the sheriff’s department.

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre by his various 

attorneys. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

18. All documents, records, logs of the schedule vacation of Alex Moreno on September 29, 

1988 til Ocotber 10, 1988, and the route he took to L.A. California.

[Writ of mandamus granted by the district court.]

19. All Documents, records of the Plea agreement that Brian Silverman made with William A. 

Nieman, Kenard Wasmer, Ricky Zogg, and Michael Neu for the testimony against Boppre.

- 14 -
[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

20. All Crime scene video’s, all audio recordings, All interviews by Vicky Moreno, that was 

recorded,

[Overman claimed the records were investigatory, or that the records were items available 

through the criminal court proceedings and had been previously provided to Boppre and 

his various attorneys. The district court found that the records were investigatory. We find 

that the records are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

- 15 -
APPENDIX B

In his letter to Overman dated April 23, 2015, Boppre set forth 40 separately numbered 

paragraphs requesting copies of various “public records” pursuant to § 84-712. We quote Boppre’s 

requests verbatim including grammatical, typographical, and spelling errors. The bracketed 

information following each request summarizes the disposition of the request.

1. The original 911 call made on November 27, 1992, pertaining to the death of Dolores A. 

Boppre, which should include the actual time, who responded to the call(name), and the 

actual time to get to the location.

[Overman claimed he did not have the original 911 call. The district court found the records 

were investigatory. We accept Overman’s claim that he does not have the record, and 

otherwise find that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding the record is 

investigatory.]

2. All records, documents, logs of all reported calls made to the Boppre residence from 

September 15, 1988 to November 28th 1992, this should include all reports made by law 

enforcement officers, Name of the officer who responded, was anything discovered.

[Overman claimed he had no such records other than one report, of which he was providing 

the public record portion; claimed records at that time were not computerized and were 

incomplete. The district court found that Overman properly responded to the request. We 

find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

3. All reports, communications, documents, diagrams, photographs, audio, or video 

recording, and notes regarding the autopsy of Dolores A. Boppre in 1992. The time of the 

autopsy?, When it was completed? How much for such procedure? Who performed the 

autopsy?

[Overman claimed the records were not public. The district court found that the records 

were investigatory. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding, except to find that 

the cost of the autopsy is not investigatory and involves the expenditure of public funds; 

but there is another adequate remedy available to Boppre with respect to his request for 

records related to the cost of the autopsy via the coroner’s office.]

4. All reports, documents, logs from the EMT who first arrived at the scene, and what time 

this was? How long before the EMT’s was allowed to enter the house to check on Dolores 

A. Boppre? Who prevented them from entering the house?

[Overman claimed the records were not public. The district court found that the records 

were investigatory. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

- 16 -
5. All reports, documents, logs of the first officer to respond to the 911 call on November 27, 

1992 for Doleres A. Boppre, and who Pronounced her to be deceased?

[Overman stated he was providing Boppre with the public record portion of his request. 

The district court found that Overman properly responded to the request. We find no clear 

error in the district court’s finding; it appears that the majority of this request involves 

records that were investigatory.]

6. All reports, documents and logs pertaining to the acting coroner that responded to the 911 

call of Dolores A. Boppre on November 27, 1992. The time of the call, and the time of 

arrival to the scene. This should include the name of the coroner and his training records.

[Overman stated he was providing Boppre with the public record portion of his request. 

The district court found that Overman properly responded to the request. We find no clear 

error in the district court’s finding; we further find that some of these records would not be 

in the possession of Overman.]

7. All documents, reports, logs of all training of all coroners in Scottsbluff county, and the 

initial death investigation training pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §23-1213.03. This should 

include training for the following individuals Douglas Warner, Brian Silverman, Brian 

loose and Ronald C. Blevins from January 1988 to January 2015, These documents should

include the present County Attorney Dave Eubanks.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

8. All documents, reports, logs filed pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat.§ 29-2524.01 in regards to the 

duties of the county attorney to file with the State Court administrator in reference to each 

criminal homicide in Scottsbluff county from January 1987 to May 2015 by all county 

attorneys which should include Doulas warner, Brian Silverman, Dave Eubanks and any 

other county attorneys not named. This report should include and be in complaince 

with Neb.Rev.Stat. §29-2524.01 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) and (7).

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

9. All logs, documents, reports of chain of evidence on the following items collected on 

September 19, 1988 during the valdez/condon Homicides Bullets # 7A, 10A, 11A, 16A, 

20A, 28A, 30A, 40, 41, & 42, the location of each bullet? who collected? and who took 

- 17 -
custody of it, and the process after and who handled each bullet, the complete chain of 

custody, and the times of each collection?

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre by his various 

attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the trial transcript was available through Boppre’s 

attorney. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

[Requests 10-15 all have the same bracketed response, which is provided following request 

15.]

10. All documents, logs, reports of Police Officers duties pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §14-607 

which is a requirement and the Law of Nebraska which provides in part all daily reports to 

the chief of Police of the times of lighting and extinguishing of all public lights and lamps 

upon their beat and also any lamps that may be broken or out of repair, This is law of 

Nebraska, and at this time I am asking for all documents pertaining to these duties from 

January 1987 to May 2015.

11. All documents, records and logs of the monthly payment paid to Ricky Zogg by Brian 

Silverman after the trial, The reason why Brian Silverman had Ricky Zogg on a salary after 

the murders of Valdez/condon? and who paid for Ricky Zogg’s clothing at the trial of 

Boppre’s . all receipts on this.

12. All documents, records, logs of all training that is required by law and Statute Neb.Rev. 

Stat. § 81-1431 regarding training issues in Human Trafficking which is mandatory for 

Law enforcement agencies, prosecutor, public defenders, judges, and juvenile detention 

center staff, records should be from January 1988 through May 2015.

13. All documents, records, logs of Boppre’s stay in the 6x4 cell called the Hospital cell for 

144 days, who authorized such a unconstitutional punishment for such a long time? What 

was the procedures for exercise, shower, & visiting.

14. All records, documents and logs of all visits by Leonard Tabor attorney, and documents of 

all visits Boppre had during the time of September 22, 1988 til May 4th 1989.

15. All documents, records, logs, receipts of the amount of money that was given to Kenard 

Wasmer from September 22, 1988 til May 4, 1989 for rents and salary paid to him by 

Scottsbluff county.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

- 18 -
16. All documents, records, logs of the original 911 call to the fire and death of Steven J. 

Schlothauer. Who took the call, and who made the call? who was the acting coroner to 

respond? What was his training, and was it up to date.

[Overman stated he was providing Boppre with the public record portion of his request. 

The district court found that Overman properly responded to the request. We find no clear 

error in the district court’s finding; it appears that this request involves records that were 

investigatory; we further find that some of these records would not be in the possession of 

Overman.]

17. Any and all documents, reports, communications, diagrams, photographs, audio, or video 

recordings, and notes regarding the autopsy of Steven J. Schlothauer. The time of the 

authospy? When it was completed and by whom? How much for such a procedure.

[Overman claimed the records were not public. The district court found that the records 

were investigatory. We find that no clear error in the district court’s finding, except to find 

that the cost of the autopsy is not investigatory and involves the expenditure of public 

funds; but there is another adequate remedy available to Boppre with respect to his request 

for records related to the cost of the autopsy via the coroner’s office.]

18. All reports, documents, logs from the EMT’s who first arrived at the scene, and what time 

was Mr. Schlothauer pronounced dead?

[Overman claimed the records were not public. The district court found that the records 

were investigatory. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

19. All reports, documents, logs of the safe removed from the Schlothauer trailer by Brian 

silverman and cut open illegally.

[Overman claimed the records were not public. The district court found that the records 

were investigatory. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

20. Pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat.§29-3520, complete criminal history record information 

maintained by a criminal justice agency shall be a public record open to inspection and 

copying by any person, at this time I am requesting all criminal history for the following 

individuals Alan Niemann, Kenard Wasmer, Richard Valdez, Roger Sische, Jeff Polanski, 

Melissa Moreno, James Soundsleeper, Doug Warner, Brian Silverman, Alex Moreno, 

Ricky Zogg, Michael Neu, John Yellowboy, Eddie Johnson, Keith 

Broadfoot,XXXXXXXXXXXX, Randy Kanzler, Kevin Cushing, David Schich, Corrie 

Ritchie

- 19 -
[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find that an alternative writ of mandamus should issue 

ordering Overman to show cause why he cannot provide Boppre with such documents, or 

at least notify Boppre which agency has custody or control of such reports.]

21. All documents, logs and chain of custody of the (5) Shell casings collected from the Boppre 

Residence by Alex Moreno on September 20, 1988 at Approximately 11:20 a.m but not 

turned into evidence until 6:30p.m and the (7) Bullets and (2) pieces of brass cllected by 

Investigator Jack Robinson of the Nebraska State Patrol on the same day, this should 

included being sent to the lab and examined by Mark Bohaty of the above items.

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre by his various 

attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the trial transcript was available through Boppre’s 

attorney. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

22. Pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat.§14-816, all citizens of this state and other persons interested in

the examination of the RECORDS kept by ANY OFFICER of the city are hereby fully 

empowered and authorized to examine the same free of charge, so at this time I the Plaintiff, 

Jeff Boppre is asking to examine all documents records, and logs of all reports written by 

all officers in Scottsbluff, and Gering pertaining to the Valdez/Condon homicides from 

September 16 1988 to December 1989 which should include the reports of the death of 

Dolores A. Boppre, Steven Schlothauer, and Joe Richter who was shot in the head.

[Overman claimed that regarding the Valdez/Condon homicide, the records had been 

previously provided to Boppre by his various attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the 

trial transcript was available through Boppre’s attorney. With regards to the deaths of 

Dolores Boppre and Steven Schlothauer, Overman stated he was providing the public 

record portions of the reports. With regard to Joe Richter, Overman claimed he had no such 

reports. The district court found that Overman properly responded to the request, and that 

the records were otherwise investigatory. We find that the records are either investigatory 

or there is another adequate remedy available.]

23. All documents, logs and records of Jeff Boppre being pulled over on his 1977 harley 

davidson motorcycle by the Scottsbluff Police depatment Mark Brethauer approximately 3 

weeks prior to the valdez/Condon murders, but released even with the fact he had no valid 

drivers license in the state of Nebraska.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that police department records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

- 20 -
24. All documents, logs and records of the Bond set for Roger Sische for the murder of Steven 

Schlothauer. Who gave him a bond?

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

25. Pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat.§81.1401 to 81.1414.10 each sheriff shall attend twenty hours 

of continuing education in criminal Justice and Law enforcement course, at this time I Jeff 

Boppre, Plaintiff is asking for all records, logs, documents or the required continuing 

education for all sheriff’s in Scottsbluff county from August 1988 to May 2015.

[Overman stated that he was providing his training records from 2011-2015, but that he 

had no other Sheriff’s training records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

26. All documents, logs , records of Alan Niemann being transported from Morrill county Jail 

to Scottsbluff , which should include the officers names, Dates and times for each move 

From September 22, 1988 to May 1989.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding.]

[Requests 27-30 all have the same bracketed response, which is provided following request 

30.]

27. All photos taken by Gary Renner on October 13 1988 in Gallup New Mexico in regards to 

the weapon, and the place the film was developed at. This should be the negative for all 

photos with dates on them.

28. All documents, logs, records and chain of custody of the Door and curtain recovered at the 

Valdez/condon, When it came up missing? Who destroyed? And who authorized this to be 

destroyed?

29. All documents, logs, records and chain of custody of the weapon, when it was recovered? 

Who turned it into custody? The time it was logged in, The chain of custody to Mark 

Botary, and the return to Scottsbluff county, All exhibits that the gun is marked, at trial and 

testing?

30. All documents, logs, reports of the drivers that gave Alan Niemann a ride on September 

22, 1988 east of Scottsbluff, this should include the Police reports Sheriff reports of such.

- 21 -
[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre through his various 

attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the trial transcript was available through Boppre’s 

attorney. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

31. All documents, reports, logs pertaining to the arrest of Alan Niemann, which should 

include the arresting officer, time he was booked into the Scottsbluff county jail, than 

transported to Morrill county jail, Officer who transported him and the time, and why he 

was transported.

[Writ of mandamus granted by the district court.]

32. All documents, reports, logs of Alan Niemann being transported from Morrill county to 

Scottsbluff County to give deposition on Friday January 27, 1989 at 8.00 a.m, who 

transported him, and when was he returned to Morrill county.

[Writ of mandamus granted by the district court.]

33. Pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §23-1305 it is the duty of the county clerk to record in a proper 

book, to be called the ROAD RECORD, a record of the proceedings in regards to laying 

out and establishing changing or discontinuing roads in the county, at this Time the Plaintiff 

Jeff Boppre am requesting the logs, records, and documents pertaining to this statute from 

September 1988 thur May 2015.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

34. All documents, records, logs, photo’s taken by Rick Spencer, Gary Renner and Alex 

Moreno of the Wildcats on October 13th 1988, which should include all negatives and 

times that the photo’s were taken, and where they were developed at.

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre through his various 

attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the trial transcript was available through Boppre’s 

attorney. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

35. All documents, records, logs of the proceedings of Alan Niemann during the Plea 

proceedings of guilty to Robbery on October 31, 1988, and the sentencing proceedings in 

March 1989 when he was sentenced.

- 22 -
[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

36. All documents, records, logs, interviews and audio recording of the Zitterkopfs by Vicky 

Moreno, and any other Police office or sheriff that took any statements from the Zitterkopfs 

pertaining to the Valdez/Condon murders in September 1988.

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre through his various 

attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the trial transcript was available through Boppre’s 

attorney. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

37. All documents, records, logs and Audio recording by Alex Moreno of Michael Neu of the 

afternoon (Friday) February 3, 1989 at approximately 1:30pm in regards to his statement 

he made against Boppre.

[Overman claimed the records had been previously provided to Boppre through his various 

attorneys, witnesses testified at trial, and the trial transcript was available through Boppre’s

attorney. The district court found the records were investigatory. We find that the records 

are either investigatory or there is another adequate remedy available.]

38. Pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat.§23-1304, The county clerk shall keep a book in which shall be 

entered in Alphabetical order, by name of the principal, a minute of all Official Bonds filed 

in his office giving the name of the office, amount and date of Bond, name of surties, and 

date of filing, with proper reference to the book and page where the same is recorded, at 

this time the Plaintiff, Jeff Boppre is requesting a copy of all bonds for all offices from 

September 1987 to May 2015, which this should include the Bond given by Doug Warner, 

Brian Silverman, and the present deputy Attorney general Doug Warner which by law must 

give bond to the State of Nebraska in the sum of Ten Thousand dollars, I am requesting a 

complete records on all bonds in Scottsbluff County.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

39. Pursuant toNeb.Rev.Stat.§47-204 The officer in charge of any municipal jail shall keep a 

written record which shall show the name of each person confired, the date of the 

commencement and termination of his or confinement, the nature of the charge against him 

or her, and the medical service provided, At this time I the Plaintiff Jeff Boppre am 

requesting all documents, records and logs for the following individuals from June 1988 to 

August 1989 which should include Jeff Boppre, Ricky Zogg, Alan Niemann, Michael Neu, 

- 23 -
Roger Sische, Jeff Polanski, Kevin Cushing, Eddie Johnson, Kenard Wasmer, John 

Yellowboy.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

40. Pursuant to Neb.rev. Stat. §23-1217, all documents, records, and logs for the county 

attorney, deputy county attorney the mandatory continuing legal education that is required 

for all county attorneys, deputy in Scottsbluff county for August 1988 to May 2015, This 

should include all expenses records incurred such as tuition, fees etc for Doug Warner, 

Brian Silverman, Dave Eubanks and any other acting county attorneys in Scottsbluff 

county.

[Overman claimed to have no such records. The district court found that Overman properly 

responded to the request. We find no clear error in the district court’s finding; we further 

find that these records would not be in the possession of Overman.]

(Emphases in original.)

- 24 -