Offenses Against Property

ORS 164.135
Unauthorized use of a vehicle


(1)

A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle when:

(a)

(A) The person knowingly takes, operates, exercises control over or otherwise uses another’s vehicle, boat or aircraft;

(B)

The person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the owner of the vehicle, boat or aircraft does not consent to the taking, operation or other use of, or the exercise of control over, the vehicle, boat or aircraft; and

(C)

The owner of the vehicle, boat or aircraft did not consent to the taking, operation or other use of, or the exercise of control over, the vehicle, boat or aircraft;

(b)

(A) The person knowingly rides in another’s vehicle, boat or aircraft;

(B)

The person knows that the owner of the vehicle, boat or aircraft does not consent to the person’s riding in the vehicle, boat or aircraft; and

(C)

The owner or an authorized user of the vehicle, boat or aircraft did not consent to the person’s riding in the vehicle, boat or aircraft;

(c)

Having custody of a vehicle, boat or aircraft pursuant to an agreement between the person or another and the owner thereof whereby the person or another is to perform for compensation a specific service for the owner involving the maintenance, repair or use of such vehicle, boat or aircraft, the person intentionally uses or operates it, without consent of the owner, for the person’s own purpose in a manner constituting a gross deviation from the agreed purpose; or

(d)

Having custody of a vehicle, boat or aircraft pursuant to an agreement with the owner thereof whereby such vehicle, boat or aircraft is to be returned to the owner at a specified time, the person knowingly retains or withholds possession thereof without consent of the owner for so lengthy a period beyond the specified time as to render such retention or possession a gross deviation from the agreement.

(2)

Unauthorized use of a vehicle, boat or aircraft is a Class C felony.

(3)

Subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section does not apply to a person who rides in or otherwise uses a public transit vehicle, as defined in ORS 166.116 (Interfering with public transportation), if the vehicle is being operated by an authorized operator within the scope of the operator’s employment. [1971 c.743 §134; 2001 c.851 §1; 2007 c.71 §50; 2019 c.530 §1]

Notes of Decisions

There was no crime under this section, when there was no evidence of defendant's exercise of control over an operable vehicle. State v. Macomber, 269 Or 58, 523 P2d 560 (1974)

The court error in failing to remove the issue of unlawful taking from the jury was not prejudicial, even though the unlawful taking was listed as an alternative means of committing theft, for the evidence indicated that the property entered the defendant's possession with the owner's consent. State v. Mortenson, 27 Or App 265, 555 P2d 940 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

This section was not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Boyd, 28 Or App 725, 560 P2d 689 (1977)

Defendant's unauthorized use of fork lift truck constituted unauthorized use of "vehicle" within meaning of this section, notwithstanding that vehicle was not licensed for operation on public roads. State v. Essig, 31 Or App 639, 571 P2d 170 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Burglary of or trespass to a vehicle, as was proscribed by former sections, does not constitute "use" of vehicle under this section. State v. Douthitt, 33 Or App 333, 576 P2d 1262 (1978)

A combine and a swather are vehicles within meaning of this section. State v. Keys, 41 Or App 379, 597 P2d 1266 (1979)

An inoperable motorcycle is a "vehicle" within meaning of this section. State v. Blair, 54 Or App 228, 634 P2d 491 (1981)

Indictment which alleged intentional use of vehicle as consisting of "gross deviation from agreed purpose" of performing repairs on automobile was sufficient. State v. Trow, 56 Or App 478, 642 P2d 1178 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Where juvenile is charged with and admits to act that if committed by adult would be crime resulting in possible confinement for five years and court's advice is insufficient regarding nature of charge and consequences of admission, child cannot be deemed to have made knowing waiver and juvenile court erred in not setting admission aside. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Clements, 95 Or App 640, 770 P2d 937 (1989)

Evidence that defendant had alleged association with gang members and that gang members used stolen cars in illegal activities was irrelevant to prove defendant's knowledge that car was stolen. State v. Stone, 104 Or App 534, 802 P2d 668 (1990)

Where return of vehicle to owner is withheld, venue is proper either in county where vehicle is unlawfully possessed or county where return was contemplated. State v. Paget, 134 Or App 476, 896 P2d 1 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Person commits crime of unauthorized use of vehicle when person operates or exercises control over vehicle without consent of person whose right to possession of vehicle is superior to that of person operating or exercising control over vehicle. State v. Haney, 256 Or App 506, 301 P3d 445 (2013)

Defense of "honest claim of right" in prosecution for theft available under ORS 164.035 is not defense to prosecution for unauthorized use of vehicle under this section, because prosecution for unauthorized use of vehicle does not require proof of "theft." State v. Pusztai, 269 Or App 893, 348 P3d 241 (2015)

Because "without the consent of the owner" is part of nature and character of act of unauthorized use of vehicle under this section, minimum culpable mental state is knowledge of that fact; thus, where jury was given instruction that criminal negligence was applicable mental state required to convict defendant, reversal of conviction was required. State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531, 368 P3d 11 (2016)

Where defendant, convicted under subsection (1)(a) of this section, had consent to use employer's vehicle but kept vehicle for longer time than agreed, and state provided evidence only as to subsection (1)(c) of this section but not to support conviction under subsection (1)(a), defendant is entitled to acquittal because where only deviation proved is temporal, subsection (1)(c) controls exclusively. State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017)

Term "vehicle" includes inoperable vehicles that are capable of operation with reasonable repairs but does not include vehicles that are beyond reasonable repair and constitute wrecked vehicles. State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746, 399 P3d 979 (2017)

Completed Citations

State Forester v. Umpqua R. Nav. Co., 258 Or 10, 478 P2d 631 (1970), cert. denied, 404 US 826 (1971)

§§ 164.005 to 164.135

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 432, 525-536 (1972); 10 WLJ 156 (1974)

Chapter 164

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021