Bullock v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Nevada Supreme Court
1Dissent
Steffen, J.,
joined by Mowbray, J., dissenting:
I dissent.
In my view, the majority have misperceived the thrust of the actual physical control provision contained in NRS 484.379. Both the hearing officer and the district court judge understood, correctly I submit, that the legislature sought by that language to discourage intoxicated persons from entering their vehicles in the capacity of operators in areas accessible to the public.
I agree with the hearing officer’s conclusion that although “it is commendable for an individual not to drive his vehicle once he is *329incapable of safely operating…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hughes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975
- State v. WebbArizona Supreme Court · 1954
- City of Cincinnati v. KelleyOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Adams v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
- City of Toledo v. VoylesOhio Court of Appeals · 1984