State v. Hyland

abuse of judicial discretion. State v. Williams, 276 Neb. 716,
757 N.W.2d 187 (2008). Flores argues that a lesser sentence
would have fulfilled the statutory purposes, but does not iden-
tify the circumstances supporting a lesser penalty. As the State
correctly responds, Flores was not convicted of a drug- or
alcohol-related offense and he disclaimed any need for sub-
stance abuse treatment. Flores fails to articulate any basis upon
which a lesser sentence would deter future instances of driving
under revocation.
Under the circumstances before us, we find no basis for
characterizing a sentence close to the statutory minimum as
excessive. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentence
imposed by the district court.
CONCLUSION
Because the statutes require us to treat a violation of a DUI
ordinance as if it were a violation of the equivalent statute for
purposes of license revocation, we conclude that the district
court did not err in admitting exhibit 1 into evidence, denying
Flores’ motion for a directed verdict, and finding Flores guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Flores sought to enter a
plea in abatement to assert a legal argument which we rejected,
we find that the district court did not err in denying Flores’
request. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Flores.
A ffirmed.
S tAte of N ebrASkA, Appellee , v .
turNer J. H ylANd , AppellANt .
769 N.W.2d 781
Filed April 21, 2009. 	No. A-08-897.
1. Courts: Appeal and Error. Both the district court and a higher appellate
court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on
the record.
2. Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of a criminal case from
the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeal, and as
such, its review is limited to an examination of the county court record for error
or abuse of discretion.
StAte v. hyLAND 	539
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 539
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:15 AM CST

3. Motions to Suppress: Investigative Stops: Warrantless Searches: Probable
Cause: Appeal and Error. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based
on the Fourth Amendment, apart from determinations of reasonable suspicion to
conduct investigatory stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches,
is to be upheld on appeal unless its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. the
ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop
and probable cause to perform a warrantless search are reviewed de novo.
4. Investigative Stops: Motor Vehicles: Probable Cause. A traffic violation, no
matter how minor, creates probable cause to stop the driver of a vehicle.
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, kAreN
b. flowerS, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court
for Lancaster County, lAurie yArdley, Judge. Judgment of
District Court affirmed.
Randall 	Wertz, 	of 	Recknor, 	Williams 	& 	Wertz, 	for
appellant.
Jon 	Bruning, 	Attorney 	General, 	and 	Stacy 	M. 	Foust
for appellee.
iNbody, Chief Judge, and SieverS and CASSel, Judges.
CASSel, Judge.
INtRODUCtION
turner J. hyland appeals his conviction for first-offense
driving under the influence. A state trooper stopped hyland’s
vehicle because its front license plate was secured by one bolt
and hanging downward. hyland claims that the stop was not
justified because the license plate was plainly visible, more
than 12 inches off the ground, and not swinging. Because a
license plate hanging downward in nearly a vertical position is
not “fastened in an upright position” as required by the statute,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2007, at approximately 1:06 a.m., Nebraska
State trooper Kaleb Bruggeman stopped a vehicle because the
vehicle’s front license plate was “hanging sideways” by one
bolt. Bruggeman performed a traffic stop and arrested hyland,
the driver of the vehicle, as a result of the stop. the State sub-
sequently filed a complaint in county court, charging hyland
with first-offense driving under the influence.
540 	17 NeBRASKA AppeLLAte RepORtS

hyland filed a motion to suppress any evidence obtained
as a result of the alleged unlawful stop. During the hearing
on the motion, Bruggeman drew a diagram representing the
appearance of the front license plate. the diagram showed that
the license plate was held by the bolt on the right side of the
license plate and that the left side of the license plate was hang-
ing down toward the ground. Bruggeman testified that when he
stopped the vehicle, he advised hyland that the reason for the
stop “was that his front license plate was hanging by one bolt.”
Bruggeman testified that the plate was plainly visible, more
than 12 inches off the ground, and not swinging.
hyland disputed the degree to which the license plate was
hanging. In Bruggeman’s diagram, the license plate was nearly
in a vertical line and practically perpendicular to the bumper.
In hyland’s diagram, on the other hand, the license plate was
slanted downward only to a slight degree, and hyland testified
that “it was more at a 45[-]degree angle than angled straight
down.” hyland’s diagram showed the plate to be affixed by the
left-side bolt, rather than the right-side bolt. hyland admitted
that his own diagram showed the plate to be tilted downward
and not fully upright in a horizontal position.
the county court stated that if the plate was hanging down
as represented in Bruggeman’s drawing, the trooper “would
assume that it would be swinging, or that it wasn’t prevented
from swinging.” Based on the drawing, the county court denied
hyland’s motion to suppress.
On April 15, 2008, the county court held a stipulated trial.
the parties stipulated that Bruggeman’s testimony would be
consistent with his testimony at the suppression hearing and
with his narrative of the arrest. In the narrative, Bruggeman
stated that he observed the license plate “hanging sideways, not
parallel to the ground.” After stopping the vehicle, Bruggeman
detected the strong odor of alcoholic beverage, and once
hyland stepped into the patrol car, Bruggeman ascertained
that the odor of alcohol was coming from hyland’s breath.
Bruggeman observed signs of impairment while hyland per-
formed field sobriety tests, and results of a preliminary breath
test showed hyland to have a breath alcohol content over the
legal limit. Bruggeman then arrested hyland. the county court
StAte v. hyLAND 	541
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 539

found hyland guilty of driving under the influence, and the
sentence imposed by the court included 9 months’ probation
and a $400 fine.
hyland appealed to the district court, which affirmed the
judgment and sentence of the county court. hyland now timely
appeals to this court. pursuant to authority granted to this court
under Neb. Ct. R. App. p. § 2-111(B)(1), this case was ordered
submitted without oral argument.
ASSIGNMeNtS OF eRROR
hyland assigns two errors. First, he alleges that the county
court erred in finding that a license plate attached by one
bolt constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime is being
committed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-399 (Cum. Supp.
2008). Second, he contends that in deciding the motion to
suppress, the county court assumed facts which were not
in evidence.
StANDARD OF ReVIeW
[1,2] Both the district court and a higher appellate court gen-
erally review appeals from the county court for error appearing
on the record. State v. Royer, 276 Neb. 173, 753 N.W.2d 333
(2008). In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court,
the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeal, and
as such, its review is limited to an examination of the county
court record for error or abuse of discretion. Id.
[3] A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on
the Fourth Amendment, apart from determinations of reason-
able suspicion to conduct investigatory stops and probable
cause to perform warrantless searches, is to be upheld on
appeal unless its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. the
ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion to conduct an
investigatory stop and probable cause to perform a warrantless
search are reviewed de novo. Id.
ANALySIS
Like our recent decision in State v. Richardson, 17 Neb. App.
388, 763 N.W.2d 420 (2008), the case before us centers upon
whether the placement of a license plate on a motor vehicle
complies with § 60-399(1), which states in relevant part that
542 	17 NeBRASKA AppeLLAte RepORtS

“license plates shall be securely fastened in an upright position
to the motor vehicle . . . so as to prevent such plates from
swinging and at a minimum distance of twelve inches from
the ground to the bottom of the license plate.” We agree with
hyland that § 60-399 does not require a plate to be attached
by any specific number of bolts. But Bruggeman also testified
that the plate was “hanging,” and his drawing showed the plate
to be at nearly a 90-degree angle to the bumper. even hyland
admitted that his front license plate was not fully upright in a
horizontal position.
[4] A traffic violation, no matter how minor, creates prob-
able cause to stop the driver of a vehicle. State v. Royer,
supra. Because the statute requires the license plate to be
“in an upright position” and there is no dispute that it was
not fully upright, we conclude that Bruggeman had not only
a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, but
also probable cause to stop the vehicle for violating a traf-
fic statute.
Because we focus upon the requirement that the plate be in
an “upright position,” we do not need to address the county
court’s statement that if the plate was hanging as depicted in
Bruggeman’s drawing, the trooper “would assume that [the
plate] would be swinging, or that it wasn’t prevented from
swinging.” See State v. White, 276 Neb. 573, 755 N.W.2d 604
(2008) (appellate court is not obligated to engage in analysis
that is not necessary to adjudicate case and controversy before
it). While we recognize that § 60-399 also requires that the
plate be securely fastened so as to prevent it from swinging, we
decide the case based on the other statutory language.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the county court did not err in overrul-
ing hyland’s motion to suppress, because the state trooper
had probable cause to stop hyland’s vehicle for violating the
statute requiring license plates to be securely fastened in an
upright position. We therefore affirm the judgment of the dis-
trict court, which upheld the judgment below.
A ffirmed.
StAte v. hyLAND 	543
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 539