COA split on whether scooter is 'motor vehicle'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided in a case involving a man who was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while his privileges were suspended, with one judge agreeing with the state that the defendant’s scooter qualified as a motor vehicle under statute.

Michael Lock was pulled over while driving his Yamaha Zuma. Lock drove past an Indiana State Trooper at 43 mph, and the trooper saw the scooter didn’t have a license plate. The trooper discovered Lock’s driving privileges were suspended and arrested him.

Lock argued that his scooter wasn’t a motor vehicle under Indiana Code 9-30-10-16, which is required to prove he committed Class D felony operating a vehicle while suspended. He said the Zuma is a motorized bicycle, which is exempt from the provisions of statutes regarding operation of a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended.

The majority didn’t hold that the Zuma is a motorized bicycle but did agree that the state didn’t prove it is a motor vehicle. The statutory definition of “motor vehicle” does not include a motorized bicycle for purposes of I.C. 9-30-10. A motorized bicycle is defined as having a maximum design speed of no more than 25 mph on a flat surface. The Indiana Legislature has not defined “maximum design speed,” nor did the state provide a definition at trial or on appeal, wrote Judge Melissa May.

“In the absence of any such guidance, we decline the State’s invitation to speculate that a vehicle capable of travelling 43 miles per hour necessarily must have a ‘maximum design speed’ over 25 miles per hour. We may not affirm a conviction based on mere speculation,” she wrote in Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana, No. 35A04-1010-CR-641.

“If the law enforcement officer and the State, both responsible for enforcing a law, cannot determine whether a vehicle meets the statutory elements, it arguably may be impossible for a layperson to determine whether driving that vehicle comports with the law. Nevertheless, as the State did not prove the elements of the offense, we need not address vagueness,” she wrote in a footnote.

Judge John Baker dissented, finding it’s reasonable to infer that the Zuma has a maximum design speed of more than 25 mph. The trooper clocked Lock driving the scooter at 43 mph, and the statutes provide that if the vehicle is designed to go faster than 25 mph, it’s a “motor vehicle” for purposes of the charged offense. Judge Baker cited Annis v. State, 917 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), in which the defendant was driving a vehicle with a cylinder capacity in excess of that permitted under the motorized bicycle statute, and the defendant was driving it uphill at 41 mph.

The majority found the instant case distinguishable from Annis because that vehicle had a cylinder capacity larger than permitted by statute, so the vehicle wasn’t a motorized bicycle based on its cylinder capacity, regardless of its speed.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues