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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT