2007 ORS 164.135¹
Unauthorized use of a vehicle

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

(a) The person takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses another’s vehicle, boat or aircraft without consent of the owner;

(b) 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

(c) 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) 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]

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)

Where jury could reasonably conclude from evidence that defendant informant provided with car to assist police in burglary investiga­tion not only knew he lacked con­sent to drive to Portland but abandoned investiga­tion and statute prohibits any unauthorized use of vehicle, trial court properly denied demurrer and mo­tion for judg­ment of acquittal. State v. Cox, 96 Or App 473, 772 P2d 1385 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

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

Completed Cita­tions

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

Law Review Cita­tions

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

Chapter 164

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 164—Offenses Against Property, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­164.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 164, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­164ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.