Court Opinion

ID: 9714488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:38:42.031548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:26.390600
License: Public Domain

Heavican, C.J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In the majority’s view, the failing of the sworn report in this case is that the officer completing the report simply stated a conclusion rather than stating his reasons for arresting W. Ben Snyder. The majority concludes that under Hahn v. Neth,1 such a defect requires a finding that the sworn report did not confer jurisdiction on the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to revoke Snyder’s license.
While some defects in a sworn report might be jurisdictional, the technical defects of the sworn report in this case should not operate to divest the DMV of jurisdiction. The better rule and better reading of the statutory scheme is that the information *174missing from the sworn report, at least as to the “reasons for such arrest”2 at issue in this case, may be established by other means, including the testimony of the arresting officer. Indeed, such was permissible prior to this court’s decision in Hahn. In Morrissey v. Department of Motor Vehicles,3 this court held that “[i]f the sworn report is not proper, the department may, nevertheless, establish its case by other means, such as by the testimony of a witness . . . .”
There is no dispute that the information in the sworn report in this case was accurate and provided the DMV with a factual basis with which to commence revocation proceedings. Indeed, the sworn report, in compliance with § 60-498.01(3), stated that Snyder was arrested for driving while under the influence, listed reasons for Snyder’s arrest, and further indicated that upon request, Snyder submitted to a chemical test which ultimately showed a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.
To the extent that the “reasons” provided in the sworn report might have initially been insufficient, there is no dispute that by the conclusion of the hearing, evidence had been adduced to substantiate all necessary factual findings. In particular, the officer who arrested Snyder testified to certain observations he made during the course of the traffic stop. The officer also testified that prior to Snyder’s arrest, he conducted, and Snyder failed, field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test.
The statutory scheme which provides for the revocation of an operator’s license when an individual has been driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is contained in § 60-498.01. The intent behind the revocation process is clear:
Because persons who drive while under the influence of alcohol present a hazard to the health and safety of all persons using the highways, a procedure is needed for the swift and certain revocation of the operator’s license of any *175person who has shown himself or herself to be a health and safety hazard . . . .4
Given that the Legislature has seen fit to find that “swift and certain revocation” of an operator’s license is necessary when an individual drives while under the influence, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the technical defects in this sworn report divest the DMV of jurisdiction to revoke Snyder’s license. I would instead reverse the judgment of the Douglas County District Court and affirm the revocation order entered by the DMV.

 Hahn v. Neth, 270 Neb. 164, 699 N.W.2d 32 (2005).

 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.01(3)(a) (Reissue 2004).

 See Morrissey v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 264 Neb. 456, 459, 647 N.W.2d 644, 649 (2002), disapproved, Hahn v. Neth, supra note 1.

 § 60-498.01(1).