Court Opinion

ID: 9736126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:44:46.763754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.526441
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
The evidence is conclusive that a 20-minute delay was required between voiding and the taking of the urine sample. I therefore adhere to the position taken in my dissent in Hoyle v. Peterson, 216 Neb. 253, 343 N.W.2d 730 (1984). There was no inconvenience to the authorities in allowing the appellee to contact a lawyer and no threat to the reliability and accuracy of the test. If it is maintained that mere conversation or presence of a lawyer during the time a test is requested inhibits the functions of a police department, the suspicion grows that in the prudent exercise of our constitutional duties we should require no less.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.