Opinion ID: 6317555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: On July 11, 2020, Pope was the subject of a traffic stop after he was witnessed committing a traffic infraction. Following the stop, he was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and was transported to the local police department, where he refused a chemical test of his breath. The arresting officer completed a sworn report regarding the administrative revocation of Pope’s operator’s license. A copy of that report was given to Pope at the time of his arrest, and another copy was submitted to the Department and received on or about July 20, 2020. Pope’s copy of that report was not notarized, but was signed by the arresting officer. The copy received by the Department included a second signature of the arresting officer, as well as the signature and stamp of a notary. The primary issue is whether this sworn report was sufficient to provide the Department with jurisdiction to revoke Pope’s license. An administrative license revocation hearing was held on August 11, 2020. On August 17, the Department filed a second notice for hearing. In that notice, the Department indicated that another hearing had been scheduled due to the inability of the hearing officer to hold a hearing on August 11 (this, despite the fact that the record shows that a hearing occurred on that date). On that same date, August 17, the hearing officer entered a separate order holding the record open and granting a contin­uance. Notice of both the Department’s and the hearing officer’s orders was served on Pope. The second hearing was held on August 25, 2020. During that hearing, the hearing officer questioned the arresting officer about the sworn report. In his testimony, the arresting - 973 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports POPE v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Cite as 310 Neb. 971 officer explained that his signature on the right side of the document, next to the notary block, had been signed in the presence of a notary. Following this second hearing, the hearing officer recommended, and the Department entered, an order revoking Pope’s operator’s license. Pope appealed to the district court, which affirmed. Pope now appeals to this court. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Pope assigns that the district court erred in (1) finding that the Department had jurisdiction to revoke his operator’s license where the report submitted did not establish a prima facie case for revocation because it was not properly sworn to by the arresting officer; (2) finding that the Department properly continued the hearing, which was in violation of his due process rights; and (3) affirming the revocation after the Department exceeded its authority under its enabling legislation by ordering the hearing officer to reopen the hearing.