ILNews

Court rules on farm tractor operation case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Farm tractor drivers can’t be charged with driving with a suspended license, but they can be charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Those holdings come with today’s ruling in State of Indiana v. Richard J. Laker, Jr. , No. 24A04-0912-CR-736, out of Franklin Circuit Court. Police spotted a white Lexus in a ditch off to the side of the road in Franklin County in 2008, and an officer dispatched to investigate found Edinburgh resident Richard Laker at the scene hitching the car up to the back of a Massey Ferguson farm tractor. The man told police that a friend had wrecked the car and asked him to tow it out of the ditch, and the officer learned that Laker had a suspended driver’s license and also appeared to be intoxicated; a blood test later indicated the man’s blood alcohol content was .10. Laker was arrested.

In a probable cause affidavit attached to the charging information, the officer described the vehicle as the red Massey Ferguson tractor and also referred to that tractor in two information and summons tickets. Laker moved to dismiss the charges based on them being predicated on his operation of the farm tractor, and Circuit Judge Clay Kellerman dismissed all the counts on the grounds that they couldn’t serve as the basis for any of the alleged offenses.

On appeal, the panel affirmed the trial judge on the dismissal of the driving while suspended count because Indiana Code section 9-13-2-105 provides that the term “motor vehicle” “does not include a farm tractor.”

But the panel disagreed on the OWI-specific count, since I.C. § 9-13-2-196 specifics that a “vehicle” is any “device for transportation by land or air” and “in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway.” No farm tractor exemption is detailed in the statute, the court found, stating that only an electric personal assistive mobility device is exempt. The panel also cited State v. Manuwal, 904 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 2009) that held OWI statutes apply to the operation of all-terrain vehicles.

The appellate panel remanded that latter issue to the trial court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT