Court Opinion

ID: 9656228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:43:47.784305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:30.506534
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C. J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
While I generally concur with nearly all of the majority opinion, I must dissent on the limited issue regarding whether the officer should be required to advise the accused of his rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.09 (Reissue 1984). For all of the reasons more specifically set out in my dissent in State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274, 328 N.W.2d 769 (1983), I would overrule our *226holding in State v. Miller, supra, insofar as we held that an officer need not inform the person to be tested of his privilege to request an independent test, and would, rather, hold that the officer must advise the defendant of his rights under § 39-669.09.
I am authorized to state that White and Grant, JJ., join in this concurrence and dissent.