Opinion ID: 1804136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: sworn report

Text: In her third assignment of error, Davis argues the sworn report should not have been received into evidence because of a lack of foundation for the chemical test result reported on the sworn report. Davis claims that McGuire v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 253 Neb. 92, 568 N.W.2d 471 (1997), stands for the proposition that a minimal amount of foundation must be made so as to reasonably confirm that the chemical tests have been conducted in accordance with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure rules and regulations, 177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, §§ 001 through 010 (1998). We have held that the department makes a prima facie case once it establishes that the arresting officer provided his or her sworn report to the director containing the required recitations. McGuire v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra ; McPherrin v. Conrad, 248 Neb. 561, 537 N.W.2d 498 (1995). Thereafter, the burden is on the defendant to prove that one or more of the recitations on the sworn report were false. Id. In her brief, Davis characterizes the issue as one of foundation for the sworn report. In his argument at the conclusion of the license revocation hearing, Davis' counsel stated, There's nothing [in the sworn report] that says that ... the test was done in compliance with Title 177, and we believe we've met the sufficient rebuttal and did so by a preponderance of the evidence and as a result she should not have her license revoked. In McGuire v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra , we held that the defendant met his burden of disproving the truth of the sworn report when he elicited testimony that the arresting officer did not have the required permit to conduct the chemical test. No such evidence was adduced by Davis. At the license revocation hearing, Davis' arresting officer testified that he did not know if the individual who administered the chemical test to Davis possessed a valid permit to conduct such a test, in accordance with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure rules and regulations. Rather than disproving the contents of the sworn report, Davis merely proved that a possibility existed that the contents of the sworn report were not true. Davis did not carry her burden of rebutting the department's prima facie case, and the district court did not err in affirming on this ground.