Indiana

CASES
  • Click here to download all Indiana cases

  • Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (2012)

    Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, and his driver's license was suspended. Transfer was granted. The Supreme Court held that defendant, who was automobile passenger and rode down highway with jar of marijuana between his legs, used vehicle in committing offense of possessing marijuana, as would require suspension of license. Affirmed.

  • Commissioner, Dept. of Revenue v. Partlow, 769 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

    Driver, who had been diagnosed with epilepsy as a young teenager and had not had any seizures relating to such illness for fifteen years, was medically qualified to hold commercial driver's license under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations where driver's physician testified it was not likely that driver's condition continued to require anti-seizure medication and that the amount of medication prescribed for driver was not likely to be therapeutic. Driver's physician also testified that the risk of driver experiencing another seizure was extremely remote.

  • Frohardt v. Bassett, 788 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

    Penske rental truck that driver was operating when truck hit motorist's vehicle was not a "commercial motor vehicle" pursuant to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and similar state statute, and thus driver was not required to possess a commercial driver's license when operating truck, since truck weighed less than minimum weight for a commercial motor vehicle, and driver was not an employee of Penske.

  • Gibson v. Hand, 756 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)

    Appellant-Respondent, Gary Gibson, Commissioner, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, appeals the trial court's grant of Appellee-Petitioner's, Richard Hand, Verified Petition for Hardship Driver's License. Reversed.

  • Hassfurther v. State, 988 N.E.2d 811 (2013)

    Driver filed petition for judicial review of administrative license suspension following his refusal to consent to chemical testing for intoxication following arrest for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The Superior Court denied petition. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] officer had probable cause to believe that driver was operating vehicle while intoxicated, and thus had probable cause to offer driver chemical test for intoxication, and [2] driver failed to establish that he was not adequately informed about license suspension if he refused chemical test. Affirmed.

  • Hazelwood v. State, 3 N.E.3d 39 (2014)

    Recidivist driving violator filed petition for rescission of lifetime suspension of his driving privileges. The Circuit Court denied petition. Violator appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] rehabilitative justice provision of state constitution did not preclude application of license reinstatement statute to bar from applying for rescission of lifetime suspension, and [2] application of license reinstatement statute to bar violator from seeking for rescission did not constitute "punishment," within scope of proportionality clause of state constitution and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Affirmed.

  • Hory v. State, 954 N.E.2d 475 (2011)

    Defendant was convicted in a bench trial in the Adams Superior Court of illegal parking. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that federal motor safety regulations did not expressly or impliedly preempt local traffic safety laws, and thus defendant could be convicted of illegal parking even if defendant was a trucker engaged in interstate commerce. Affirmed.

  • Illinois Bulk Carrier, Inc. v. Jackson, 908 N.E.2d 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

    States that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations eliminate the distinction between independent contractors and employees so that an attempt by motor carriers to avoid liability simply by labeling a driver as an independent contractor is unavailing.

  • Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. McNeil, 931 N.E.2d 897 (2010)

    Motorist petitioned for judicial review of determination of Bureau Of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that motorist, following his most recent conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), was an habitual traffic violator (HTV) and thus eligible for ten-year driver's license suspension. The Circuit Court, Allen County, reinstated motorist's driving privileges upon finding that the two-year statute of limitations applied such that the passage of more than two years from the accrual of the cause of action to the notice of suspension barred the BMV from suspending motorist's driver's license. The BMV appealed. The Court of Appeals held that administrative action to suspend motorist's driver's license did not constitute an action for "a forfeiture of penalty given by statute" as was necessary for two-year statute of limitations to apply. Reversed.

  • Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Orange, 889 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

    Holder of commercial driver's license (CDL) who was convicted of operating a noncommercial vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement could be granted probationary driving privileges to drive noncommercial vehicles, even though he was ineligible to drive a commercial motor vehicle under state statute incorporating Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA); MCSIA did not restrict CDL holder's right to drive noncommercial vehicles, and state law could not be more restrictive than MCSIA.

  • Majors v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1112 (2011)

    Defendant convicted of driving a 28,000-pound oil rig through a red light, colliding with another vehicle and killing the other driver, appealed his 11-year sentence as inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. The Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the sentence.

  • Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 982 N.E.2d 312 (2012)

    Driver sought review of decision of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), suspending her driver's license for ten years based on her status as a habitual traffic violator (HTV). The Circuit Court, Monroe County, denied driver's request for preliminary injunction. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] eight-year delay in imposing suspension threatened the public interest, given that license suspension would cause driver to lose her job and thrust her and her family into poverty, thus supporting driver's claim of laches; [2] driver presented a prima facie case of an articulable public policy interest that outweighed public policy supporting denying laches, thus supporting injunction; [3] one's status as an HTV is not dependent upon the person's possession of a valid driver's license; and [4] driver had no adequate remedy at law, thus supporting injunction. Reversed and remanded.

  • Silverman v. Fifer, 837 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)

    Under preemption doctrine, federal statute precluded Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles from issuing restricted commercial driver's license based on hardship, to over-the-road truck driver whose commercial driver's license had been suspended because he had refused to take breath test for evidence of intoxication.

  • State v. Bryant, 4 N.E.3d 808 (2014)

    Defendant was charged with Class D felony operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator (HTV). The Superior Court, Hendricks County, granted defendant's motion to dismiss. State appealed. The Court of Appeals held that defendant was properly charged with Class D felony operating a vehicle as HTV. Reversed and remanded.

  • Thomas v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 979 N.E.2d 169 (2012)

    Motorist filed petition for judicial review of decision of Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), determining that motorist was a habitual traffic violator (HTV) and suspending his driving privileges for ten years. The Superior Court denied the petition, and motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] general ten-year statute of limitations applied to BMV's determination that motorist qualified as HTV, and [2] statute of limitations began to run on date of motorist's third conviction for a traffic violation. Affirmed.

STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions