ILNews

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.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT