(1) At the expiration of fifteen days after the date of arrest as described in subsection (2) of section 60-6,197 or if after a hearing pursuant to section 60-498.01 the director finds that the operator's license should be revoked, the director shall (a) revoke the operator's license of a person arrested for refusal to submit to a chemical test of blood, breath, or urine as required by section 60-6,197 for a period of one year and (b) revoke the operator's license of a person who submits to a chemical test pursuant to such section which discloses the presence of a concentration of alcohol specified in section 60-6,196 for a period of one hundred eighty days unless the person's driving record abstract maintained in the department's computerized records shows one or more prior administrative license revocations on which final orders have been issued during the immediately preceding fifteen-year period at the time the order of revocation is issued, in which case the period of revocation shall be one year. Except as otherwise provided in section 60-6,211.05, a new operator's license shall not be issued to such person until the period of revocation has elapsed. If the person subject to the revocation is a nonresident of this state, the director shall revoke only the nonresident's operating privilege as defined in section 60-474 of such person and shall immediately forward the operator's license and a statement of the order of revocation to the person's state of residence.
(2) A person operating a motor vehicle under an ignition interlock permit issued pursuant to sections 60-498.01 to 60-498.04 shall only operate a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. All permits issued pursuant to such sections shall indicate that the permit is not valid for the operation of any commercial motor vehicle.
(3) A person may have his or her eligibility for a license reinstated upon payment of a reinstatement fee as required by section 60-694.01.
(4)(a) A person whose operator's license is subject to revocation pursuant to subsection (3) of section 60-498.01 shall have all proceedings dismissed or his or her operator's license immediately reinstated without payment of the reinstatement fee upon receipt of suitable evidence by the director that:
(i) The prosecuting attorney responsible for the matter declined to file a complaint alleging a violation of section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section or dismissed a filed complaint alleging a violation of section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section prior to trial;
(ii) The defendant, after trial, was found not guilty of violating section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section; or
(iii) In the criminal action on the charge of a violation of section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section arising from the same incident, the court held one of the following:
(A) The peace officer did not have probable cause to believe the person was operating or in the actual physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section; or
(B) The person was not operating or in the actual physical control of a motor vehicle while having an alcohol concentration in violation of section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section.
(b) The director shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations establishing standards for the presentation of suitable evidence of compliance with subdivision (a) of this subsection.
(c) If a criminal charge is filed or refiled for a violation of section 60-6,196 or a city or village ordinance enacted in conformance with such section pursuant to an arrest for which all administrative license revocation proceedings were dismissed under this subsection, the director, upon notification or discovery, may reinstate an administrative license revocation under this section as of the date that the director receives notification of the filing or refiling of the charge, except that a revocation shall not be reinstated if it was dismissed pursuant to section 60-498.01.
Notes of Decisions
Stenger v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 743 N.W.2d 758 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 10× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) provides that a revocation is for 90 days unless the person’s driving abstract shows one or more prior revocations in the previous 12 years.”
Chase v. Neth, 697 N.W.2d 675 (Neb. 2005).
· cites it 4× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Supp. 2003).”
Kenley v. Neth, 712 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 3× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (4) (Reissue 2004).”
State v. Nelson, 759 N.W.2d 260 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 60-6,196 (Reissue 2004) is reduced by any period of revocation imposed under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004).”
State v. Frederick, 291 Neb. 243 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The State submitted into evidence Frederick’s records with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The records show that at the time the officer observed Frederick driving in the Wal-Mart parking lot, his license was administratively revoked pursuant to “Section 60-498.”
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 41× “03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
State v. Arterburn, 276 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (4)(a) (Reissue 2004).”
Nothnagel v. Neth, 752 N.W.2d 149 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Nothnagel for 1 year pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004).”
State v. Moody, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 328 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Moody refers to one legislator's remark during a floor debate that he wanted to " 'send a message,' " brief for appellant at 6, as indicative of the Legislature's desire to impose a punishment, which in turn should be considered when determining whether § 60-498.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(1) — 2 cases
Stenger v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 743 N.W.2d 758 (Neb. 2008).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) provides that a revocation is for 90 days unless the person’s driving abstract shows one or more prior revocations in the previous 12 years.”
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(2) — 1 case
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(2)(a) — 1 case
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(2)(b) — 1 case
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(3) — 1 case
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(4) — 1 case
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(4)(a) — 2 cases
Chase v. Neth, 697 N.W.2d 675 (Neb. 2005).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Supp. 2003).”
Kenley v. Neth, 712 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. 2006).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (4) (Reissue 2004).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(a) — 1 case
Bazar v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 774 N.W.2d 433 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
“03), which provides that any driver whose operator's license has been suspended for a period of 1 year pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) is ineligible for an employment driving permit, is not in accord with Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02(l)(b) — 1 case
Stenger v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 743 N.W.2d 758 (Neb. 2008).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.02 (Reissue 2004) provides that a revocation is for 90 days unless the person’s driving abstract shows one or more prior revocations in the previous 12 years.”
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.