For purposes of sections 29-2266.01 to 29-2266.03:
(1) Absconding supervision means a probationer has purposely avoided supervision for a period of at least two weeks and reasonable efforts by probation officers and staff to locate the probationer in person have proven unsuccessful;
(2) Administrative sanction means an additional probation requirement imposed upon a probationer by his or her probation officer, with the full knowledge and consent of the probationer, designed to hold the probationer accountable for violations of conditions of probation, including, but not limited to:
(a) Counseling or reprimand by his or her probation officer;
(b) Increased supervision contact requirements;
(c) Increased substance abuse testing;
(d) Referral for substance abuse or mental health evaluation or other specialized assessment, counseling, or treatment;
(e) Imposition of a designated curfew for a period not to exceed thirty days;
(f) Community service for a specified number of hours pursuant to sections 29-2277 to 29-2279;
(g) Travel restrictions to stay within his or her county of residence or employment unless otherwise permitted by the supervising probation officer; and
(h) Restructuring court-imposed financial obligations to mitigate their effect on the probationer;
(3) Custodial sanction means an additional probation requirement imposed upon a probationer designed to hold the probationer accountable for a violation of a condition of probation. A custodial sanction may include up to thirty days in jail as the most severe response and may include up to three days in jail as the second most severe response;
(4)(a) Noncriminal violation means a probationer's activities or behaviors which create the opportunity for re-offending or diminish the effectiveness of probation supervision resulting in a violation of an original condition of probation, including:
(i) Moving traffic violations;
(ii) Failure to report to his or her probation officer;
(iii) Leaving the jurisdiction of the court or leaving the state without the permission of the court or his or her probation officer;
(iv) Failure to work regularly or attend training or school;
(v) Failure to notify his or her probation officer of change of address or employment;
(vi) Frequenting places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;
(vii) Failure to perform community service as directed; and
(viii) Failure to pay fines, court costs, restitution, or any fees imposed pursuant to section 29-2262.06 as directed; and
(b) Noncriminal violation does not include absconding supervision; and
(5) Substance abuse violation means a probationer's activities or behaviors associated with the use of chemical substances or related treatment services resulting in a violation of an original condition of probation, including:
(a) Positive breath test for the consumption of alcohol if the offender is required to refrain from alcohol consumption;
(b) Positive urinalysis for the illegal use of drugs;
(c) Failure to report for alcohol testing or drug testing; and
(d) Failure to appear for or complete substance abuse or mental health treatment evaluations or inpatient or outpatient treatment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
State v. Jedlicka, 305 Neb. 52 (Neb. 2020).
State v. Jedlicka, 305 Neb. 52 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 14× “The court observed that a positive urinalysis for the illegal use of drugs was a substance abuse violation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 (5) (Reissue 2016), that one cannot use and test positive for illegal drugs without possessing the same, and that persons on probation for a…”
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019).
“20 See § 29-2266(1). 21 Kennedy, supra note 1 . 22 Id.”
State v. Painter, 394 N.W.2d 292 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 (1) (Reissue 1985) provides in part: Whenever a probation officer has reasonable cause to believe that a probationer has violated or is about to violate a condition of his probation, but that the probationer will not attempt to leave the jurisdiction,…”
State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Section 28-105(5) further pro- vides that “[a]ll sentences of post-release supervision shall be served under the jurisdiction of the Office of Probation Administration and shall be subject to conditions imposed pur- suant to section 29-2262 and subject to sanctions authorized…”
State v. Kartman, 224 N.W.2d 753 (Neb. 1975).
· cites it 3× “The defendant has appealed and contends the revocation procedure in this case denied him due process of law and did not comply with sections 29-2266 and 29-2267, R. S. Supp.”
Kartman v. Parratt, 397 F. Supp. 531 (D. Neb. 1975).
· cites it 2× “After a final revocation hearing was held in the district court on October 18, 1973, at which the petitioner was represented by counsel, the petitioner’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to imprisonment for one to ten years on Count II and one year on Count III, the…”
State v. Jaworski, 234 N.W.2d 221 (Neb. 1975).
“The District Court made a written finding “by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of violation of probation,” adjudged him guilty, and deferred sentence.”
State v. Pawling, 621 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Here, Martinez called the judge on the telephone. The same section also provides that the sentencing court may suspend further proceedings, instruct the probation officer to handle the matter informally, or refer the matter to the county attorney.”
State v. McManus (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Each of these violations is either a noncriminal or a substance abuse violation pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 (4) and (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019).
“R emaining Period of Post-R elease Supervision [3] When interpreting a statute, effect must be given, if pos- sible, to all the several parts of a statute; no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided.”
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019).
“R emaining Period of Post-R elease Supervision [3] When interpreting a statute, effect must be given, if pos- sible, to all the several parts of a statute; no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266(1) — 4 cases
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019).
“20 See § 29-2266(1). 21 Kennedy, supra note 1 . 22 Id.”
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019).
“R emaining Period of Post-R elease Supervision [3] When interpreting a statute, effect must be given, if pos- sible, to all the several parts of a statute; no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided.”
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2019).
“R emaining Period of Post-R elease Supervision [3] When interpreting a statute, effect must be given, if pos- sible, to all the several parts of a statute; no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided.”
State v. McManus (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
“Each of these violations is either a noncriminal or a substance abuse violation pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 (4) and (5) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266(4)(b) — 1 case
State v. McManus (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
“Each of these violations is either a noncriminal or a substance abuse violation pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 (4) and (5) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266(5) — 1 case
State v. Jedlicka, 305 Neb. 52 (Neb. 2020).
“The court observed that a positive urinalysis for the illegal use of drugs was a substance abuse violation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2266 (5) (Reissue 2016), that one cannot use and test positive for illegal drugs without possessing the same, and that persons on probation for a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.