- 152 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

State of Nebraska, appellant, v

Steven J. Hatfield, appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 8, 2018. No. S-16-893.

1. Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Search and Seizure. Application of the good faith exception to the 

exclusionary rule is a question of law.

5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate court 

reaches a conclusion independent of the court below.

6. Criminal Law: Statutes: Appeal and Error. Absent specific statutory 

authorization, the State generally has no right to appeal an adverse ruling in a criminal case.

7. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Evidence. The exclusionary 

rule is a judicially created remedy that generally prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

8. Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Intent. The purpose 

of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.

9. Courts: Search and Seizure. Because the exclusionary rule should not 

be applied to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity, the U.S. 

Supreme Court created a good faith exception to the rule.

10. Constitutional Law: Courts: Search and Seizure: Police Officers 

and Sheriffs: Evidence. A court may decline to apply the exclusionary 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/06/2018 01:10 AM CDT
- 153 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

rule when evidence is obtained pursuant to an officer’s objectively 

reasonable reliance on a law that is not clearly unconstitutional at 

the time.

11. Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Where an exception proceeding is brought from the district court sitting as an appellate court, Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 2016) does not limit the relief the higher 

appellate court can order, because the defendant was not placed legally 

in jeopardy in the district court.

Appeal from the District Court for Gage County, Paul W.

Korslund, Judge, Retired, on appeal thereto from the Count

Court for Gage County, Steven B. Timm, Judge. Exception sustained, and cause remanded for further proceedi

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

for appellant.

Steven J. Mercure, of Nestor & Mercure, and Lindy L. 

Mahoney, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, St

Funke, J

Per Curiam

INTRODUCTION

On intermediate appeal from county court, the district court 

vacated Steven J. Hatfield’s conviction for driving under the 

influence (DUI) and granted him a new trial after determining that his warrantless blood draw was unlawful and inadmissible in light of Birchfield v. North Dakota.

1

 Because we 

determine that the good faith exception to the exclusionary 

rule applies, we sustain the State’s exception. And because 

we are not prevented from affecting the district court’s decision when it sits as an appellate court, we reverse the order 

and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

1 Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 

560 (2016).
- 154 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

BACKGROUND

On an early morning in December 2014, two deputies 

with the Gage County Sheriff’s Department stopped Hatfield’s 

vehicle after radar detected that it had been speeding. When a 

deputy asked Hatfield for his license and registration, Hatfield 

was slow to respond and would not make eye contact. Both 

deputies detected an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, 

although they were unable to determine whether the odor 

came from Hatfield or one of his three passengers. Upon 

inquiry, Hatfield confirmed that he had been drinking alcohol. And during field sobriety tests, Hatfield showed signs 

of impairment during one of the tests. One of the deputies 

arrested Hatfield for DUI and transported him to a hospital for 

a blood draw.

Prior to the blood draw, the arresting deputy read Hatfield 

the “Post Arrest Chemical Test Advisement” form. The form 

advised Hatfield that he was under arrest for DUI, that he was 

required by law to submit to a chemical test of his blood for 

alcohol content, and that refusal to submit to the test was a 

separate criminal charge. Hatfield signed the form. According 

to the nurse who drew the blood sample from Hatfield, he was 

“cooperative throughout the blood draw process.” The blood 

test revealed that Hatfield had an alcohol concentration above 

the legal limit.

The State charged Hatfield with DUI, and a jury convicted 

him of the offense. After the county court held an enhancement 

hearing and determined that this conviction was Hatfield’s second DUI offense, the court imposed a sentence.

Hatfield appealed his conviction to the district court. He 

alleged that the county court erred by receiving certain evidence and by failing to dismiss due to insufficient evidence. 

After those issues had been briefed, the U.S. Supreme Court 

released its opinion in Birchfield2 and Hatfield requested that 

2 Id.
- 155 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

the district court consider that decision. Based on Birchfield, 

the court found that Hatfield’s warrantless blood draw was 

unlawful and inadmissible. The court therefore reversed 

Hatfield’s conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial. 

The court did not consider the errors assigned by Hatfield. Nor 

did it consider whether Hatfield’s consent to the blood test was 

voluntary or whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.

The State appealed, and we moved the case to our docket.3

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The State assigns that the district court erred by vacating 

Hatfield’s DUI conviction without considering whether his 

blood draw was voluntary or whether the good faith exception 

to the exclusionary rule applied.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1-3] 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.4 Both the district court and a higher 

appellate court generally review appeals from the county court 

for error appearing on the record.5 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.6

[4,5] Application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a question of law.7

 On a question of law, 

3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106 (Reissue 2016).

4 State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2018).

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840, 901 N.W.2d 327 (2017), cert. denied 2018 

WL 2186231, 86 U.S.L.W. 3571 (U.S. May 14, 2018).
- 156 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the 

court below.8

ANALYSIS

[6] Before addressing the merits, we observe that the State 

brought this appeal. Absent specific statutory authorization, 

the State generally has no right to appeal an adverse ruling in 

a criminal case.9 But a statutory exception to the general rule 

authorizes a prosecuting attorney to request appellate review 

of an adverse ruling by a district court.10 We have interpreted 

§ 29-2315.01 to allow exception proceedings taken from the 

district court sitting as an intermediate court of appeal.11 We 

now turn to the arguments advanced in the State’s appeal.

Good Faith Excep

The State assigns that the district court erred in vacating 

Hatfield’s conviction without considering two matters. It contends that the court should have determined whether the blood 

draw was voluntary or whether the good faith exception to the 

exclusionary rule applied. Because we can dispose of the merits of the appeal on the basis of the good faith exception, we 

need not make a determination as to the voluntariness of the 

blood draw.

[7-9] The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy 

that generally prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.12 Its purpose 

is to deter police misconduct.13 Because the exclusionary rule 

should not be applied to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity, the U.S. Supreme Court created a good faith 

8 Id.

9 State v. Thalken, supra note 4.

10 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 2016).

11 See State v. Thalken, supra note 4.

12 See State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920, 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015).

13 See State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767, 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014).
- 157 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

exception to the rule.14 The Birchfield decision did not directly 

address whether the good faith exception should apply where 

consent to a blood test is given following an incorrect advisement that refusing such a test is a crime.

[10] In State v. Hoerle,

15 we concluded that the good faith 

exception to the exclusionary rule applied to a warrantless 

blood draw carried out prior to the Birchfield decision. We 

explained that a court may decline to apply the exclusionary 

rule when evidence is obtained pursuant to an officer’s objectively reasonable reliance on a law that is not clearly unconstitutional at the time. And we discerned no deterrent value in 

suppressing the results of the blood test.

We adhere to our reasoning in Hoerle. Here, as in Hoerle, 

the blood draw was obtained in accordance with our implied 

consent statute, which was not clearly unconstitutional at the 

time of Hatfield’s December 2014 arrest. Consistent with 

Hoerle, we conclude that the good faith exception applies to 

warrantless pre-Birchfield blood draws in cases brought both 

on direct appeal and in error proceedings under § 29-2315.01. 

Because the good faith exception applies, the district court 

erred in reversing Hatfield’s conviction.

Effect of R

As we noted at the outset of the analysis, the State brought 

this appeal pursuant to § 29-2315.01. Because it was brought 

as an exception proceeding, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 

2016) applies. Section 29-2316 states in part that “[t]he judgment of the court in any action taken pursuant to section 

29-2315.01 shall not be reversed nor in any manner affected 

when the defendant in the trial court has been placed legally in 

jeopardy . . . .”

[11] In a criminal case, § 29-2316 does not prohibit a 

higher appellate court from reversing a district court’s decision 

14 State v. Hoerle, supra note 7.

15 See id.
- 158 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

300 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HATFIELD

Cite as 300 Neb. 152

where the district court was acting as an intermediate appellate 

court. We recently declared that “where the matter is brought 

to us by an exception proceeding from the district court sitting as an appellate court, § 29-2316 does not limit the relief 

we can order, because the defendant was not placed legally 

in jeopardy in that court.”16 We explained that “in a criminal 

case where the district court is sitting as an appellate court in 

an appeal brought by the defendant, the defendant . . . effectively arrived at the district court on appeal already cloaked in 

jeopardy, having been placed legally in jeopardy by the county 

court.”17 Because § 29-2316 does not limit the relief we can 

order, we reverse the ruling of the district court.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draw 

in this case. Because the result of the blood test was admissible, the district court, sitting as an appellate court, erred in 

reversing Hatfield’s conviction and vacating his sentence. We 

therefore sustain the State’s exception. And because § 29-2316 

does not constrain us from granting relief, we reverse the district court’s order and remand the cause to the district court for 

further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Upon 

remand, the district court may consider the errors originally 

assigned by Hatfield.

 Exception sustained, and cause 

for further proceedin

Wright and Kelch, JJ., not participating in the decisi

16 State v. Thalken, supra note 4, 299 Neb. at 880, ___ N.W.2d at ___.

17 Id. at 884, ___ N.W.2d at ___.