- 596 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE V. SVENDGARD

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 596

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Travis T. Svendgard, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 14, 2023. No. A-22-202.

1. Courts: Appeal and Error. Both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error 

appearing on the record.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. 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.

3. Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently reviews questions 

of law in appeals from the county court.

4. Search and Seizure: Search Warrants. In the absence of a clear showing of prejudice, the failure to comply strictly with postservice statutory 

requirements will not invalidate a search conducted pursuant to an otherwise valid warrant.

Appeal from the District Court for Washington County, 

John E. Samson, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County 

Court for Washington County, Francis W. Barron III, Judge. 

Judgment of District Court affirmed.

David V. Drew, of Drew Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss 

for appellee.

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Arterburn and Welch, Judges.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

02/21/2023 01:04 AM CST
- 597 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE V. SVENDGARD

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 596

Pirtle, Chief Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Travis T. Svendgard appeals from the order of the district 

court for Washington County which affirmed the order of the 

Washington County Court denying Svendgard’s pretrial motion 

to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant 

executed in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-815(1) (Reissue 

2016). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. On 

March 7, 2021, a law enforcement officer, Miranda Anderson, 

conducted a traffic stop after she observed Svendgard driving with a defective headlight. Upon making contact with 

Svendgard, Anderson detected the odor of alcohol and observed 

that Svendgard’s eyes were bloodshot and watery. Anderson 

arrested Svendgard, and the parties stipulated there was probable cause for that arrest. Anderson transported Svendgard 

to the police department for a definitive breath test, but the 

“DataMaster” machine was not working, so Anderson had to 

obtain a search warrant to authorize a blood draw. Anderson’s 

body camera footage shows her advising Svendgard that she 

was leaving to obtain the search warrant and would return to 

transport him to a hospital for the blood draw.

Anderson drafted an affidavit and a proposed warrant, and 

she contacted Judge Francis W. Barron III of the Washington 

County Court via telephone. Thereafter, Anderson drove to 

Judge Barron’s residence and presented him with the affidavit 

and proposed warrant, and Judge Barron signed the search 

warrant authorizing a blood draw. Anderson then transported 

Svendgard to the hospital and observed hospital staff conduct the blood draw. Svendgard’s blood alcohol content was 

.093 grams per 100 milliliters of blood. Following the blood 

draw, Anderson’s body camera footage shows her handling a 

copy of the signed search warrant in Svendgard’s presence 

and discussing the warrant with medical staff. However, 
- 598 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE V. SVENDGARD

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 596

Svendgard was never actually provided with a copy of the 

search warrant.

On March 29, 2021, the State filed a criminal complaint 

in Washington County Court charging Svendgard with one 

count of driving under the influence of alcohol. On May 

24, Svendgard filed a motion to suppress the results of the 

blood draw on the grounds that Anderson failed to give him a 

copy of the warrant, as required by § 29-815. Svendgard also 

alleged certain other defects in the warrant which are not at 

issue on appeal. The hearing on Svendgard’s motion to suppress and trial on the State’s criminal complaint were both 

held on September 1.

On the motion to suppress, the parties stipulated that 

Anderson failed to give Svendgard a copy of the warrant. The 

State argued that defect was merely “ministerial,” such that 

suppression was not proper absent a showing of prejudice. 

Svendgard, on the other hand, argued that that rule only applies 

to “post-service statutory requirements,” and the defects in this 

case were violations of “service” requirements. The county 

court agreed with the State and denied the motion to suppress, 

finding that the defects complained of were “ministerial act[s]” 

and that Svendgard suffered “no clear prejudice.”

After trial, the county court found Svendgard guilty of 

driving under the influence and sentenced him accordingly. 

Svendgard appealed to the district court, challenging only the 

county court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On February 

28, 2022, the district court entered an order affirming the 

county court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The district 

court concluded that “under the facts of this case, the error 

was ministerial in nature and de minimis, and does not rise 

to the level of having the evidence suppressed.” Svendgard 

appealed to this court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Svendgard assigns, restated, that the district court erred in 

affirming the county court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
- 599 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE V. SVENDGARD

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 596

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1-3] Both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing 

on the record. State v. Webb, 311 Neb. 694, 974 N.W.2d 317 

(2022). 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. However, 

an appellate court independently reviews questions of law in 

appeals from the county court. Id.

ANALYSIS

[4] There is no dispute in this case that Anderson failed to 

comply with a statutory requirement to provide Svendgard 

with a copy of the search warrant. See § 29-815(1) (officer 

taking property under warrant shall give to person from whom 

or from whose premises property was taken copy of warrant 

and receipt for property or shall leave copy and receipt at 

place from which property was taken). Svendgard does not 

otherwise challenge the validity of the warrant or the probable 

cause upon which it was based. Moreover, Svendgard acknowledges that in the absence of a clear showing of prejudice, the 

failure to comply strictly with statutory requirements which 

are ministerial in nature will not invalidate a search conducted 

pursuant to an otherwise valid warrant. State v. Nolt, 298 Neb. 

910, 906 N.W.2d 309 (2018).

In Nolt, the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed a challenge 

to a search warrant that was not returned and filed within 10 

days, in violation of § 29-815. The court determined that the 

requirement to return a warrant within 10 days was “a postservice statutory requirement, which is ministerial in nature.” 

State v. Nolt, 298 Neb. at 923, 906 N.W.2d at 321. Because the 

purely ministerial defect itself did not invalidate the warrant, 

the court concluded that suppression of the evidence seized 

was not required absent a clear showing of prejudice.
- 600 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE V. SVENDGARD

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 596

Svendgard’s sole argument on appeal is that Nolt does not 

apply to the present case on the grounds that the requirement 

to provide a copy of the warrant is a “service,” as opposed 

to a postservice, statutory requirement. Brief for appellant at 

4. Svendgard maintains that while postservice requirements 

are ministerial in nature, service requirements are not. Thus, 

according to Svendgard, a warrant executed in violation of a 

service requirement invalidates the search and requires suppression regardless of prejudice. We disagree.

It is true that the Nolt court referred to the statutory requirement in that case as a “postservice” requirement, but there was 

no indication that the court intended to make the sweeping 

pronouncement that Svendgard proposes. The operative question in Nolt was not whether the statutory violation at issue 

was a “service” or a “postservice” error, but, rather, whether 

the violation was purely ministerial and thus not subject to 

suppression absent a showing of clear prejudice. See, also, 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-823 (Reissue 2016) (no evidence shall 

be suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting 

substantial rights of accused).

Svendgard argues that Anderson’s failure to provide a copy 

of the warrant was not ministerial based on his assertion that 

“service” errors are considered nonministerial as a matter of 

law. Whatever the import of the semantic distinction between 

postservice and service errors, we disagree that the Supreme 

Court intended to adopt a per se rule requiring suppression 

of the evidence in this case. See State v. Nolt, supra. The 

defect complained of in this case is the failure to comply with 

a statutory requirement to provide a copy of an otherwise 

valid warrant. The record suggests that Svendgard was at all 

times aware of what was happening during the driving under 

the influence investigation, including the fact that a search 

warrant was being obtained for the purpose of conducting a 

blood draw. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree 

that the statutory violation at issue in this case was a purely 
- 601 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

31 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE V. SVENDGARD

Cite as 31 Neb. App. 596

ministerial defect. Such a defect does not invalidate a search 

warrant absent a clear showing of prejudice, and Svendgard 

made no such showing in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the 

order of the district court affirming the county court’s denial 

of Svendgard’s motion to suppress.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the district court.

Affirmed.