State v. Frederick, 291 Neb. 243

Benjamin Frederick was convicted in county court of driving during revocation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-4,108(1) after an officer observed him driving (weaving) inside a Wal‑Mart parking lot; the vehicle had no plates and a passenger was present.
DMV records and county court judgment showed Frederick’s license was revoked administratively and by court order (DUI second offense) covering the date of the incident.
The officer never observed Frederick leave the privately owned but publicly accessible parking lot; Frederick admitted he lacked a license.
Frederick moved to suppress and later to dismiss for failure to make a prima facie case, arguing § 60-4,108 requires operation on a public highway; motions were denied and he was convicted and sentenced (30 days jail, 9 months probation).
The district court affirmed, concluding § 60-4,108 contains no “public highways” limitation (distinguishing § 60-4,186, which does include that limitation).
On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for the mandatory 1-year revocation required by § 60-4,108(1)(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Frederick)	Held
Whether § 60-4,108(1) requires proof the driving occurred on a public highway	Statute contains no location limitation; applies to operation anywhere (including publicly accessible private property)	§ 60-4,108 should be read to include the implicit limitation “on the public highways,” like § 60-4,186	Court held § 60-4,108 unambiguous and does not require operation on a public highway; conviction affirmed
Whether the sentence imposed complied with statutory mandatory revocation	State: existing sentence was lawful	Frederick: (raised on appeal as part of review) county court failed to impose the statutorily required 1‑year license revocation	Court found plain error in sentencing; vacated sentence and remanded for imposition of mandatory 1‑year revocation

State v. Kelekolio, 14 P.3d 364 (Haw. App. 2000) (refused to add a "public highway" limitation where statute's language was plain)
Guidry v. State, 650 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. App. 1995) (declined to read additional location requirement into clear statute and emphasized legislative omission)
State v. Hackett, 804 A.2d 225 (Conn. App. 2002) (held broad driving‑under‑revocation statute prohibited operation without location limitation)
State v. Bauman, 552 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. App. 1996) (interpreted driving‑with‑revoked‑license statute as not limited to public highways)