Owning Animals in the City of Lincoln

Owning Dogs in Lincoln, Nebraska
Do you know the laws for owning a pet in the city of Lincoln? The first thing to know is that you can only own three (3) dogs. If you are anything like me, I know that you want to save all the dogs in the shelters, but you are only allowed three dogs. If you have more than three (3) dogs in one home in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska, you could face criminal charges.

Licensing Pets in Lincoln, Nebraska
One of the most important things to know for both Cat and Dog owners in Lincoln, Nebraska is that anyone with a Cat or Dog over the age of six (6) months old is required to have the pet licensed and the pet must have their rabies vaccination.  Did you know that you had to license your pet? Do you know how to license your pet? You can go to http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/health/animal/permits.htm to find more information regarding licensing of pets in Lincoln, Nebraska. The fees to license your pet are also located on the web-page listed above.

Why does Lincoln want pets licensed?
The City wants you to put the tag that you get from licensing your pet on their collar., that way if you pet gets lost or injured, the city can return your pet back to you.

How long is the licenses valid for?
The license is valid for one year from the date of purchase.

What if you are late at re-registering your pet?
If you are 31 days or more after the expiration date, then there is a $15.00 fee added on to your renewal. 

What information do I need in order to purchase a pet license?
You need the date and location of your pets most recent rabies vaccination. You will also need to take a picture of its rabies tag. Along with that, if your pet is altered, then you will need the date and place of where your pet was spayed or neutered. In addition, you will need a picture of the documentation that says that the spaying or neutering was completed.            

What happens if I don’t register my pet?
If you do not register your pet, and you get caught, you could face criminal charges and have to go to court. You could be fined a $100.00 and may also be ordered pay court costs, which are approximately $48.00.

If you are facing criminal charges related to your pets, contact criminal defense attorneys at Stephanie Flynn Law, or call (402) 325-8469 for help.

By: Samantha Hogan

Automobile Exception to Search and Seizure Rule

Right to be Free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. However, since the drafting of the constitution, there have been numerous exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court of the United States. One such exception is the Automobile Exception.

The Automobile Exception
The Automobile Exception is a rule that allows law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant. The rule only applies if the police have probable cause to believe contraband is present.  Law enforcement can search the vehicle without a warrant because (1) vehicles are readily movable and (2) there is a lesser degree of protection in a vehicle than ones house or other property. The rationale is that vehicles don’t have a heightened privacy expectation because the government regulates them with inspections in licensing.

What can law enforcement search?
Under United States v. Ross (1982), when law enforcement has probable cause to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle, law enforcement may search the entire vehicle and open any packages or luggage found in the vehicle that could reasonably contain the items for which the police have probable cause to search.

Who can law enforcement search? 
Under Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that passengers of vehicles can be searched if the vehicle is being searched, so long as there is probable cause. Individualized probable cause for each person is not required. Meaning that if there is probable cause to search the vehicle, then there is likely probable cause to search all persons located inside the vehicle.

Right to Suppress Evidence
If evidence is seized from your or your vehicle as a result of a warntless search under the automobile exception, you have the right to contest the search and seizure by way of a Motion to Suppress. In order to be successful on a Motion to Suppress evidence, you must be able to show that the police did not have probable cause to search the vehicle or your person. If successful, any evidence seized from you or your vehicle will be suppressed and cannot be used by the State at trial.

If evidence has been seized from you and you need help seeking to suppress the evidence from being used against you at trial, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Stephanie Flynn Law, or call (402) 325-8469 for help.

By: Abby Kuntz

Problem Solving Courts

Do you feel like the criminal justice system is not helping you with your underlining issue? Do you suffer from substance abuse? Mental Health? Did your children get removed because of Domestic Violence

Nebraska courts believe it or not want to help you get the help you need. It is not always about punishments. The Nebraska Supreme Court set up a committee of members from the courts, probation, law enforcement, and the legal community called the Nebraska Supreme Court Committee on Problem-Solving Courts. Their purpose statement is: “The purpose of the committee will be to evaluate the feasibility of implementing ‘drug courts’ or other similar ‘community courts’ in Nebraska. The committee will advise the Supreme Court as to whether such courts would have a positive effect on the administration of justice in the State and, if so, to provide the Court with recommendations as to the structure and integration of such courts into our judicial system.”

The problem courts that we have in Lancaster County are: Adult Drug Court, Family Dependency Court (aka Separate Juvenile Court), Juvenile Drug Court, and Veterans Treatment Court. Each Court works on different things that are unique to those individuals that are part of the system. The Court is a team setting. Everyone involved just wants to help you succeed from the judge, to the prosecutor, and your defense counsel. You will have a team of other people from a coordinator, community supervision officer, law enforcement, and treatment providers all working to the same goal as you. If that is to not go to jail or not having your kids taken away. (To learn more: https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/courts/problem-solving-courts and https://nebraskalegislature.gov/pdf/reports/research/snapshot_courts_2019.pdf)

The Juvenile Court in Lancaster county deals with issues from truancy or law violations of a minor all the way up to abuse and neglect of a minor. In Juvenile Court you can take a “track” that specializes in Domestic Violence if that is an issue that is going on within your family. Juvenile Court consists of hearings and team meetings (this is where you meet with your attorney, the department, Guardian Ad Litem, etc. to get the support you need on whatever issues you may be having).

Adult Drug Courts Mission: “to increase public safety by providing a program that facilitates access to treatment, implements intensive case management, decreases substance abuse, and returns law abiding, productive, and responsible citizens to their families and the community.” (To learn more: https://www.lancaster.ne.gov/193/Adult-Drug-Court)

Veterans Treatment Courts Mission: “to honor the service of justice-involved veterans by providing a rehabilitative program that combines intensive judicial supervision and treatment services to address veteran’s service-related experiences and enhances public safety by returning law-abiding and productive citizens to the community.” (To learn more: https://www.lancaster.ne.gov/961/Veterans-Treatment-Court)

By: Samantha Hogan

DUI

In State v. McCave, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that one cannot be convicted of a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) when operating a vehicle on private property that is not open to public access. State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (2011). The Nebraska Supreme Court held that, as a matter of law, a residential driveway is not private property that is open to public access. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed McCave's conviction for DUI while parked in a private driveway. The Court found that the police did not have probable cause to believe that McCave was an intoxicated person in control of a vehicle on private property open to public access.

Under Nebraska, a person may be convicted of a DUI if said person is in actual physical control of any motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor or of any drug when such person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of his or her blood or when such person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of his or her breath.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,196. However, Nebraska's DUI laws don't apply to a person's operation or control of a vehicle on private property that is not open to public access.  

In State v. Prater, 268 Neb. 655, 686 N.W.2d 638 896 (2004), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that an apartment building parking lot is private property open to public access.  The Court in McCave held that a private driveway is not private property open to public access as members of the general public have no right or implied permission to use a private residential driveway or the ability to enter the driveway in the same sense that a member of the public might drive through or use a private parking lot.

In summary, unless a suspect is in a location where the suspect could not have been unless the suspect had driven the vehicle while intoxicated (see State v. Miller, 226 Neb. 576, 412 N.W.2d 849 (1987) and State v. Baker, 224 Neb. 130, 395 N.W.2d 766 (1986)) or there is sufficient evidence to support that a suspect has driven a vehicle on a public road while intoxicated, a person cannot be convicted of a DUI while parked in a private driveway.   

If you're facing a DUI Charge, contact criminal defense lawyers at Stephanie Flynn Law, or call (402) 325-8469, to speak with an attorney who can help you through the process. 

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held that sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a nonhomicide crime was a violation of the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010). The United States Supreme Court went one step further in 2012, finding that it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile convicted of a homicide to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Therefore, a juvenile can still be sentenced to life without parole, but there has to be discretion given to the sentencing Judge as to whether or not to issue such a sentence.

“[O]ur individualized sentencing decisions make clear that a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles. By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). 

The Nebraska Supreme Court recognized and applied the U.S. Supreme Court case law in State v. Castaneda 287 Neb. 289 (2014) when the Court vacated Castaneda's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and remanded the cases for resentencing. The Nebraska Supreme Court went one step further in State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) and found that the rule in Miller applied retroactively to Mantich.