 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Genevieve C.6/21/2005
Inbody, Chief Judge, and Sievers and Cassel, Judges.
INTRODUCTION
Genevieve C. appeals from a juvenile court decision adjudicating Genevieve pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(1) (Cum. Supp. 2002) for making a false statement to a police officer in violation of a city ordinance. We must consider whether the ordinance conflicts with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-907(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2004), because the ordinance does not require that the statement be material or that the speaker have a specific intent to impede or instigate an investigation. Finding no conflict, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A petition filed May 27, 2004, in the separate juvenile court of Lancaster County alleged that Genevieve was a child as defined by § 43-247(1) because on or about April 5, Genevieve intentionally or knowingly made a false statement to a police officer concerning the subject of an investigation, in violation of a Lincoln ordinance. Genevieve filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the city of Lincoln did not have the authority to enact criminal laws inconsistent with Nebraska's statutes.
On August 31, 2004, the petition and the motion to dismiss came on for hearing. The court received into evidence the ordinance at issue, heard arguments on the motion to dismiss, overruled the motion, and proceeded with the adjudication hearing. Michael Pratt, a Lincoln police officer, testified that on the afternoon of April 5, 2004, he approached a vehicle--occupied by the female later determined to be Genevieve--in the parking lot of a grocery store located at 66th and O Streets. Such vehicle matched the dispatcher's description of a vehicle which had been seen at another location in the chain of grocery stores operating under that name. Pratt identified himself as a police officer and informed the female that he was investigating counterfeit payroll checks that were being cashed at the other store's location. Pratt asked the female for her name and was given the name "Lindsay Lock." Pratt also obtained her address, telephone number, and date of birth. Pratt later determined the female's true identity to be Genevieve, and Genevieve subsequently admitted to Pratt that she had lied about her identity because she knew she was wanted as a runaway and because she did not want to go back to a group home, to become involved in the investigation, or to be taken into custody.
The court found the allegations of the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt and adjudicated Genevieve as a child within the meaning of § 43-247(1). Genevieve timely appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Genevieve asserts that the juvenile court erred (1) in failing to dismiss the petition pursuant to her claim that the city of Lincoln did not have the authority to enact a criminal ordinance inconsistent with state laws and (2) in finding that Genevieve was a child as defined by § 43-247(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
With regard to questions of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court's conclusion. Pipe & Piling Supplies v. Betterman & Katelman, 8 Neb. App. 475, 596 N.W.2d 24 (1999).
Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the record, and an appellate court is required to reach a conclusion independent of the juvenile court's findings. In re Interest of Joshua R. et al., 265 Neb. 374, 657 N.W.2d 209 (2003).
ANALYSIS
Validity of Ordinance
[3-6] As a city of the primary class, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 15-101 (Reissue 1997), the city of Lincoln has authority to enact ordinances
Page 1 2 3 4 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|