NRS
484A.185 “Premises to which the public has access” defined.
1. “Premises to which the public has
access” means property in private or public ownership onto which members of the
public regularly enter, are reasonably likely to enter, or are invited or
permitted to enter as invitees or licensees, whether or not access to the
property by some members of the public is restricted or controlled by a person
or a device.
2. The term includes, but is not limited
to:
(a) A parking deck, parking garage or other
parking structure.
(b) A paved or unpaved parking lot or other paved
or unpaved area where vehicles are parked or are reasonably likely to be
parked.
(c) A way that provides access to or is
appurtenant to:
(1) A place of business;
(2) A governmental building;
(3) An apartment building;
(4) A mobile home park;
(5) A residential area or residential
community which is gated or enclosed or the access to which is restricted or
controlled by a person or a device; or
(6) Any other similar area, community,
building or structure.
3. The term does not include:
(a) A private way on a farm.
(b) The driveway of an individual dwelling.
(Added to NRS by 1983,
1065; A 1997,
325)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.122)
Notes of Decisions
Urias (brandon) v. Dist. Ct. (state) (Crim.), 568 P.3d 576 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 3× “040 extends beyond highways to areas where the public has access, specifically pointing out that parking lots are included in NRS 484A.185's definition of "premises to which the public has access.”
Chrisman v. Howell (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “11 12 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484A.185. On direct appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court held: 13 Chrisman argues that the State failed to prove that he was stopped on a "highway" under NRS 484C.”
Chrisman v. Howell (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484A.185(1). 23 1 3. State court determination 2 In affirming Chrisman’s judgment of conviction, the Nevada Supreme Court held: 3 Chrisman argues that the State failed to prove that he was stopped on a “highway” under NRS 484C.”
Neagle v. Johnson (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Contrary to Neagle’s assertion, there is no language in NRS 484A.185 that limits “[p]remises to which the public has 14 access” only to areas used for vehicular travel.”
McCurdy (Marc) v. State (Nev. 2013).
“We conclude that a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer from this evidence that McCurdy was in actual physical control of the car while under the influence of alcohol.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484A.185(1) — 1 case
Chrisman v. Howell (D. Nev. 2022).
“” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484A.185(1). 23 1 3. State court determination 2 In affirming Chrisman’s judgment of conviction, the Nevada Supreme Court held: 3 Chrisman argues that the State failed to prove that he was stopped on a “highway” under NRS 484C.”
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.