Ind. Code » Title 9
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4 (2025)

Habitual violators

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 4. (a) A person who has accumulated at least two (2) judgments within a ten (10) year period for any of the following violations, singularly or in combination, and not arising out of the same incident, is a habitual violator:

(1) Reckless homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.

(2) Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.

(3) Failure of the operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or injury to any person to stop at the scene of the accident and give the required information and assistance.

(4) Operation of a vehicle while intoxicated resulting in death.

(5) Before July 1, 1997, operation of a vehicle with at least ten-hundredths percent (0.10%) alcohol in the blood resulting in death.

(6) After June 30, 1997, and before July 1, 2001, operation of a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least ten-hundredths (0.10) gram of alcohol per:

(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the blood; or

(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the breath;

resulting in death.

(7) After June 30, 2001, operation of a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per:

(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the blood; or

(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the breath;

resulting in death.

     (b) A person who has accumulated at least three (3) judgments within a ten (10) year period for any of the following violations, singularly or in combination, and not arising out of the same incident, is a habitual violator:

(1) Operation of a vehicle while intoxicated.

(2) Before July 1, 1997, operation of a vehicle with at least ten-hundredths percent (0.10%) alcohol in the blood.

(3) After June 30, 1997, and before July 1, 2001, operation of a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least ten-hundredths (0.10) gram of alcohol per:

(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the blood; or

(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the breath.

(4) After June 30, 2001, operation of a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol per:

(A) one hundred (100) milliliters of the blood; or

(B) two hundred ten (210) liters of the breath.

(5) Reckless driving.

(6) Criminal recklessness as a felony involving the operation of a motor vehicle.

(7) Drag racing or engaging in a speed contest in violation of law.

(8) Violating IC 9-4-1-40 (repealed July 1, 1991), IC 9-4-1-46 (repealed July 1, 1991), IC 9-26-1-1(1) (repealed January 1, 2015), IC 9-26-1-1(2) (repealed January 1, 2015), IC 9-26-1-2(1) (repealed January 1, 2015), IC 9-26-1-2(2) (repealed January 1, 2015), IC 9-26-1-3 (repealed January 1, 2015), IC 9-26-1-4 (repealed January 1, 2015), or IC 9-26-1-1.1.

(9) Resisting law enforcement with a vehicle under:

(A) IC 35-44.1-3-1(c)(1);

(B) IC 35-44.1-3-1(c)(2)(C);

(C) IC 35-44.1-3-1(c)(3);

(D) IC 35-44.1-3-1(c)(4); or

(E) IC 35-44.1-3-1(c)(5).

(10) Any felony under this title or any felony in which the operation of a motor vehicle is an element of the offense.

A judgment for a violation enumerated in subsection (a) shall be added to the violations described in this subsection for the purposes of this subsection.

     (c) A person who has accumulated at least ten (10) judgments within a ten (10) year period for any traffic violation, except a parking or an equipment violation, of the type required to be reported to the bureau, singularly or in combination, and not arising out of the same incident, is a habitual violator. However, at least one (1) of the judgments must be for:

(1) a violation enumerated in subsection (a);

(2) a violation enumerated in subsection (b);

(3) operating a motor vehicle while the person's license to do so has been suspended or revoked as a result of the person's conviction of an offense under IC 9-1-4-52 (repealed July 1, 1991), IC 9-24-18-5(b) (repealed July 1, 2000), IC 9-24-19-2, or IC 9-24-19-3; or

(4) operating a motor vehicle without ever having obtained a license to do so.

A judgment for a violation enumerated in subsection (a) or (b) shall be added to the judgments described in this subsection for the purposes of this subsection.

     (d) For purposes of this section, a judgment includes a judgment in any other jurisdiction in which the elements of the offense for which the conviction was entered are substantially similar to the elements of the offenses described in subsections (a), (b), and (c).

     (e) For purposes of this section, the offense date is used when determining the number of judgments accumulated within a ten (10) year period.

[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-12-1-4 part.]

As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.1-1992, SEC.62; P.L.1-1993, SEC.61; P.L.33-1997, SEC.13; P.L.1-2000, SEC.13; P.L.32-2000, SEC.3; P.L.175-2001, SEC.12; P.L.28-2010, SEC.5; P.L.125-2012, SEC.349; P.L.85-2013, SEC.100; P.L.217-2014, SEC.133; P.L.221-2014, SEC.79; P.L.5-2015, SEC.29; P.L.188-2015, SEC.113; P.L.201-2019, SEC.1; P.L.218-2025, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Abernathy v. Gulden, 46 N.E.3d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abernathy v. Gulden, 46 N.E.3d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 34× “I.C. § 9-30-10-4. Even though the HTV statute has been amended several times in recent years, only, the 2012 amendment, which became effective on July 1, 2012 and which added subsection 4(e), is directly at issue here.”
Freeman v. State, 658 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. 1995). · cites it 8× “" Ind.Code Ann. § 9-30-10-4 (West 1992). See discussion in Part C, infra.”
Nathan Brock v. State of Indiana, 955 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. 2011). · cites it 2× “1 See Ind.Code §§ 9-30-10-4, -5. Brock continued to drive until he was caught, in January, 1993, driving on a suspended license.”
State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008). · cites it 2× “2008), or a habitual traffic offender, see Ind.Code § 9-30-10-4 (2004). If any one or more of these inter *290 ests were present, then it would be necessary to determine whether such interest or interests were sufficiently important to overcome an accused’s substantial liberty…”
Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs., 982 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4 (e). . The BMV cites Bryant v.”
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs. v. McNeil, 931 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Here, on June 14, 2006, MeNeil was convicted of operating while intoxicated, which made him an HTV under Indiana Code section 9-30-10-4, because it was his third qualifying conviction within a ten-year period.”
Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Ind. Code §§ 9-30-10-4 (a)–(c), 35-50-2-14(a).”
State v. Downey, 770 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 2× “Other examples of specialized habitual offender statutes are Ind.Code § 9-30-10-4 ("habitual traffic violator") and Ind.”
State v. Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, 933 P.2d 223. · cites it 2× “§ 9-30-5-3 (Michie 1991) (designating felony status to second or subsequent DWI conviction within five years); Ind.Code Ann. § 9-30-10-4 (Michie 1991 & Cum.”
Richard Thomas v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs., 979 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “Approximately three and one-half years after receiving his third qualifying driving conviction within a ten-year period, Richard Thomas received notice from the *171 Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles that, pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-30-10-4(b), he qualified as a habitual…”
Beldon v. State, 926 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “Examples are found in Indiana Code section 9-30-10-4, which subjects "habitual traffic violators" to an additional term of years beyond that imposed for the underlying traffic violation; Indiana Code section 35-50-2-14, which applies to "repeat sexual offenders;" and the…”
Laker v. State, 869 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 9-30-10-4. 2 . Laker did not admit that he knew his license was suspended because he was an HTV.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(B): 1 case
Pebley v. State, 686 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(a): 1 case
Richard Scott Lambert v. Michael Shipman & Kent Abernathy, 53 N.E.3d 1198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(b): 12 cases
Abernathy v. Gulden, 46 N.E.3d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “I.C. § 9-30-10-4. Even though the HTV statute has been amended several times in recent years, only, the 2012 amendment, which became effective on July 1, 2012 and which added subsection 4(e), is directly at issue here.”
Richard Thomas v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs., 979 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Approximately three and one-half years after receiving his third qualifying driving conviction within a ten-year period, Richard Thomas received notice from the *171 Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles that, pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-30-10-4(b), he qualified as a habitual…”
Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs., 982 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4 (e). . The BMV cites Bryant v.”
Jenni Hill v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 589 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
State of Indiana v. Chad Bryant, 4 N.E.3d 808 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(b)(1): 1 case
State of Indiana, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs., & Kent Schroder as Comm'r of Moter Vehs. v. Matthew E. Patty, No. 09A02-1311-MI-885 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2014).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(b)(2010): 2 cases
Abernathy v. Gulden, 46 N.E.3d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “I.C. § 9-30-10-4. Even though the HTV statute has been amended several times in recent years, only, the 2012 amendment, which became effective on July 1, 2012 and which added subsection 4(e), is directly at issue here.”
Kent W. Abernathy, Comm'r of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs. & Bernard Carter, Prosecuting Attorney for Lake Cnty. v. Eric C. Gulden, Jeremy Crawford, David J. Klahn, No. 45A03-1503-MI-73 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(c): 2 cases
Landon Q. Jones v. Terry Curry, as the Marion Cnty. Prosecutor & Ronald Stiver, as the Comm'r of the Indiana BMV, No. 49A02-1403-MI-204 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2014).
Justin Dent v. State of Indiana, No. 29A03-1304-CR-128 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2013).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(e): 2 cases
Abernathy v. Gulden, 46 N.E.3d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “I.C. § 9-30-10-4. Even though the HTV statute has been amended several times in recent years, only, the 2012 amendment, which became effective on July 1, 2012 and which added subsection 4(e), is directly at issue here.”
Kent W. Abernathy, Comm'r of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs. & Bernard Carter, Prosecuting Attorney for Lake Cnty. v. Eric C. Gulden, Jeremy Crawford, David J. Klahn, No. 45A03-1503-MI-73 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.