Several aspects of the law considered problematic and likely to generate controversy are discussed. First, the fact that the Sarpy County pretrial diversion program is unaffected by L.B. 568's attempt to eliminate DWI diversion indicates a lack of attention to detail in drafting. Second, the provision requiring findings on the record concerning the number of prior convictions does not specify how these findings are to be made, nor is their purpose specified. Third, under Class W an individual apparently may be sentenced as a third offender after only two incidents, assuming both a DWI and implied consent conviction from the first. Finally, the provisions of the law requiring mandatory probation are facing eight and fourteenth amendment challenges. Such problems could have been avoided had the Unicameral used mandatory minimum sentences rather than mandatory conditions of probation.