Opinion ID: 1584424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of sworn report

Text: Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to settle jurisdictional issues presented by a case. Merrill v. Griswold's, Inc., 270 Neb. 458, 703 N.W.2d 893 (2005). Betterman argues that the sworn report submitted at the ALR hearing was deficient in that it did not recite the matters required by § 60-498.01(2) and that, therefore, the director did not acquire jurisdiction or authority to administratively revoke Betterman's driver's license. In his petition for judicial review, Betterman did not assign as error that the director lacked jurisdiction because of a defective sworn report. Although the court discussed the report in the context of considering the sufficiency of the evidence, it did not consider the jurisdictional question. Nonetheless, lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by the court sua sponte. New Tek Mfg. v. Beehner, 270 Neb. 264, 702 N.W.2d 336 (2005). The district court found that the sworn report lacked the statutorily required recitations, but the court found that the DMV established a prima facie case against Betterman by supplementing the report with testimony by Schmaderer at the hearing. This court has held that in an ALR proceeding, the sworn report of the arresting officer must, at a minimum, contain the information specified in the applicable statute in order to confer jurisdiction. Hahn v. Neth, 270 Neb. 164, 699 N.W.2d 32 (2005). The DMV makes a prima facie case for license revocation once it establishes that the officer provided a sworn report containing the statutorily required recitations. Id. If the sworn report does not include information required by statute, the report may not be supplemented by evidence offered at a subsequent hearing. See id. The district court thus erred in concluding that a sworn report which allegedly lacked the required recitations could be cured by supplemental testimony by the arresting police officer to establish a prima facie case for the ALR. When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decisions made by the lower courts. In re Interest of Jedidiah P., 267 Neb. 258, 673 N.W.2d 553 (2004). There is no factual dispute as to what information was contained in the report. The district court concluded that the explanation on the sworn report for why Betterman was arrested did not state the reasons for such arrest. See § 60-498.01(2). This court is required to reach an independent conclusion whether the sworn report provided the required statutory information to confer authority upon the director to revoke Betterman's license. In Hahn, the arrested motorist failed a chemical breath test and the officer filed a sworn report. Following an ALR hearing, the motorist's license was revoked. On appeal, the district court vacated the revocation because the sworn report did not meet the statutory requirements. The officer had not completed those portions of the sworn report form which would have shown that the motorist `was requested' to submit to the required test or `the type of test' to which he submitted. See Hahn, 270 Neb. at 171, 699 N.W.2d at 38. The director appealed. The issue was whether the report was sufficient to confer authority upon the director to revoke the motorist's license. This court found that the report did not fully comply with the statutory requirements. We stated that the arresting officer's sworn report triggers the administrative revocation process by establishing a prima facie basis for revocation. Id. at 169, 699 N.W.2d at 37. We considered when an omission on a sworn report becomes a jurisdictional defect, as opposed to a technical one. Id. at 171, 699 N.W.2d at 38. The test was whether, notwithstanding the omission, the sworn report conveys the information required by the applicable statute. Id. In the present case, the applicable statute required the sworn report to state (a) that the person was arrested as described in subsection (2) of section 60-6,197 and the reasons for such arrest, (b) that the person was requested to submit to the required test, and (c) that the person refused to submit to the required test. (Emphasis supplied.) § 60-498.01(2). The problem was not that required sections of the sworn report were omitted. The officers checked the appropriate boxes and filled out the required sections. The problem, according to the district court, was that the explanation given by the officers as to why Betterman was arrested was not specific enough to establish a prima facie basis for revocation. The issue is whether the sworn report was sufficient to support a prima facie case for license revocation. In an ALR proceeding, the sworn report of the arresting officer must, at a minimum, contain the information specified in the applicable statute in order to confer jurisdiction. Hahn v. Neth, 270 Neb. 164, 699 N.W.2d 32 (2005). A sworn report must state that the person was arrested as described in § 60-6,197(2) and the reasons for such arrest. See § 60-498.01(2). An arrest described in § 60-6,197(2) is an arrest for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs. The sworn report stated that Betterman was arrested because he had been driving recklessly, displayed signs of alcohol intoxication, and refused field sobriety tests and a breath test. The district court opined that the stated reason of reckless driving may have indicated why Betterman was stopped but did not indicate he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court also opined that Betterman's refusal of the chemical test and field sobriety tests was not a factor indicating he was under the influence and that `displayed signs of alcohol intoxication' was a broad conclusion and not sufficient to support probable cause that Betterman was driving under the influence of alcohol. The court stated that the officers should have listed such observations as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, mental confusion, or unsteadiness, observations which Schmaderer testified about at the hearing. We conclude that the sworn report conveyed the information required by § 60-498.01(2). All the appropriate boxes were checked, and the proper sections were filled out. [R]eckless driving was a valid reason for a police officer to stop Betterman's vehicle. And because Betterman displayed signs of alcohol intoxication, the officer had cause to allege that Betterman was driving . . . a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor. See § 60-6,197(2). A prima facie case for license revocation was made on the sworn report. Betterman further claims the report was insufficient to confer jurisdiction (1) because the report stated that Betterman was arrested pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat. § 60-6,197, instead of the statutory phrase as described in subsection (2) of section 60-6,197, and (2) because the report stated that [t]he individual was directed to submit to a chemical test, instead of the statutory phrase the person was requested to submit to the required test. See, § 60-498.01(2); brief for appellant in case No. S-05-638 at 21-22. These claims are without merit. The test is not whether the sworn report used the verbatim language of the statute, but whether the report conveyed the information required by the applicable statute. See Hahn, supra .