IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

TAWNEY LYNN SHOEMAKER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 83738 

FILED 

JAN 1 4 2022 

ELTZABETN A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or 

prohibition seeking to have criminal charges dismissed or, alternatively, 

certain evidence suppressed. 

Petitioner is charged with driving under the influence and 

resisting a public officer. Petitioner's arguments raised in this petition 

(regarding whether the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion of DUI 

and whether petitioner was in actual control of her vehicle sufficient for a 

DUI conviction) are fact-bound, with the framework for each issue involving 

a multi-factor factual analysis. See generally State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 

1170, 1173-74, 147 P.3d 233, 235-36 (2006) (addressing reasonable 

suspicion in the DUI context and explaining that in assessing the 

reasonableness of the officer's actions, "the evidence is viewed under the 

totality of the circumstancee); Rogers v. State, 105 Nev. 230, 233-34, 773 

P.2d 1226, 1228 (1989) (providing factors that the trier-of-fact must weigh 

to determine whether the defendant has actual physical control of a vehicle 

SUPREWIE COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

101 1947A 

• 
for the purposes of NRS 484C.110 (DUI)). Normally this court will not 

address matters that are fact-bound. See Buckwalter v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that this 

court generally only entertain extraordinary relief in the context of a motion 

to dismiss when a writ petition presents questions of law and is not factbound). 

In advancing these arguments, petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate that she lacks an adequate legal remedy by way of appeal and 

that extraordinary relief is warranted, and we therefore decline to exercise 

our discretion to entertain this petition. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Cote H. 

v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008) 

("[N]either a writ of prohibition nor a writ of mandamus is appropriate if 

the petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary 

course of law." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pan v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry 

the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); 

Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 

(1991) (providing that writ relief is purely discretionary). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

4116$16.`er:71 17. 

Parraguirre 

Hardesty Stiglich 

'Petitioner's motion to allow video evidence to be filed in this matter 

is denied. We direct the clerk of the court to return, unfiled, petitioner's 

copy of video evidence. 

2 
cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge 

Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP/Las Vegas 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4C11 I947A 

3