Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 360 (2026)

Unauthorized use of property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  A person is guilty of theft if:  
A. Knowing that the person does not have the consent of the owner, the person takes, operates or exercises control over a vehicle, or, knowing that a vehicle has been so wrongfully obtained, the person rides in the vehicle. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;   [PL 2003, c. 510, Pt. C, §4 (AMD).]
A-1. The person violates paragraph A and the person has 2 or more prior convictions for any combination of the Maine offenses listed in this paragraph or for engaging in substantially similar conduct to that of the Maine offenses listed in this paragraph in another jurisdiction. The Maine offenses are: theft; any violation of section 401 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the structure is theft; any violation of section 405 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the motor vehicle is theft; any violation of section 651; any violation of section 702, 703 or 708; or attempts to commit any of these crimes. Section 9‑A governs the use of prior convictions when determining a sentence. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;   [PL 2007, c. 476, §18 (AMD).]
B. Having custody of a vehicle pursuant to an agreement between the person and the owner of the vehicle whereby the person or another is to perform for compensation a specific service for the owner involving the maintenance, repair or use of the vehicle, the person intentionally uses or operates the vehicle, without the consent of the owner, for the person's own purposes in a manner constituting a gross deviation from the agreed purpose. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;   [PL 2003, c. 510, Pt. C, §4 (AMD).]
B-1. The person violates paragraph B and the person has 2 or more prior convictions for any combination of the Maine offenses listed in this paragraph or for engaging in substantially similar conduct to that of the Maine offenses listed in this paragraph in another jurisdiction. The Maine offenses are: theft; any violation of section 401 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the structure is theft; any violation of section 405 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the motor vehicle is theft; any violation of section 651; any violation of section 702, 703 or 708; or attempts to commit any of these crimes. Section 9‑A governs the use of prior convictions when determining a sentence. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;   [PL 2007, c. 476, §19 (AMD).]
C. Having custody of property pursuant to a rental or lease agreement with the owner of the property or a borrower's agreement with a library or museum whereby the property is to be returned to the owner at a specified time and place, the person knowingly fails to comply with the agreed terms concerning return of such property without the consent of the owner, for so lengthy a period beyond the specified time for return as to render the retention or possession or other failure to return a gross deviation from the agreement. For purposes of this paragraph, proof that the person fails to return the property within 5 days of receiving a written demand from the owner, mailed by certified or registered mail or delivered by hand after the expiration of the rental period to the most current address known to the owner, gives rise to a permissible inference under the Maine Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 of a gross deviation from the agreement. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or   [PL 2003, c. 510, Pt. C, §4 (AMD).]
D. The person violates paragraph C and the person has 2 or more prior convictions for any combination of the Maine offenses listed in this paragraph or for engaging in substantially similar conduct to that of the Maine offenses listed in this paragraph in another jurisdiction. The Maine offenses are: theft; any violation of section 401 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the structure is theft; any violation of section 405 in which the crime intended to be committed inside the motor vehicle is theft; any violation of section 651; any violation of section 702, 703 or 708; or attempts to commit any of these crimes. Section 9‑A governs the use of prior convictions when determining a sentence. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime.   [PL 2007, c. 476, §20 (AMD).]
[PL 2007, c. 476, §§18-20 (AMD).]
2.  As used in this section, "vehicle" means any automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat, snowmobile, any other motor-propelled means of transportation, or any boat or vessel propelled by sail, oar or paddle.  
[PL 1975, c. 740, §57 (AMD).]
3.  It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person reasonably believed that the owner would have consented to the person's conduct had the owner known of it.  
[PL 2001, c. 383, §48 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
4. 
[PL 2003, c. 510, Pt. C, §5 (RP).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §§56,57 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 319, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 262, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §§47-49 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 667, §D11 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 667, §D36 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 510, §§C4,5 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 476, §§18-20 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Atkinson, 458 A.2d 1200 (Me. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Atkinson, 458 A.2d 1200 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “The defendant contends that the trial justice erred at trial by (1) improperly instructing the jury on the elements of burglary; (2) not giving the jury a requested instruction on the offense of theft by unauthorized use, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983); (3) not giving a…”
State v. Horr, 2003 ME 110 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 2413(1) (1996), 3 theft by unauthorized use of property (Class D) in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983), 4 and attaching false motor vehicle plates (Class E) in violation of 29-A M.”
Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Jud. Court, 355 A.2d 341 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “17-A MRSA § 360, sub-§ 1, ¶[ C, as enacted by PL 1975, c.”
State of Maine v. Abdirahmon A. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41 (Me. 2023). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 360(1)(A) (2023). In light of that conversation, the corporal’s decision to have the vehicle towed, which was a major reason for the extended duration of the stop, was appropriate.”
State v. Tarmey, 2000 ME 23 (Me. 2000). · cites it 5× “§ 303 (1983), 2 and for unauthorized use of property pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360. After trial, the jury returned its verdict acquitting Tarmey of criminal restraint by a parent and convicting him of unauthorized use of property.”
State v. Raymond, 1999 ME 126 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “1998), theft by unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (Class D) in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983), and violation of a protective order (Class D) in violation of 5 M.”
State v. Spearin, 428 A.2d 381 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “In the instant case, the defendant did not have custody of the rental property for a lengthy period beyond the time for return.”
State v. Winchenbach, 501 A.2d 1282 (Me. 1985). “§ 401 (Class C); unauthorized use of property, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360 (Class D); operating after revocation, 29 M.”
State v. Liberty, 478 A.2d 1112 (Me. 1984). “The record contains ample evidence to sustain a jury finding that the defendant committed theft by the unauthorized use of property, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983). An individual is guilty of theft by unauthorized use of property if knowing he lacks the consent of the owner,…”
State v. Pendexter, 495 A.2d 1241 (Me. 1985). “(17-A M.R.S.A. § 360 (1983)). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the presiding justice had not responded appropriately to what the Defendant asserted was an improper comment by the prosecutor in summation, and he further challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict…”
State v. Cobb, 2006 ME 43 (Me. 2006). “2003); and theft by unauthorized use of property (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A), (4) (Supp.2003).”
State v. Gray, 2000 ME 145 (Me. 2000). “§ 2414(3) (1996), and on two counts each of theft by unauthorized use of property (Class D), see 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360 (1983 & Supp.1999), and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Class E), see 17-A M.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 360(1)(A) — 13 cases
State v. Atkinson, 458 A.2d 1200 (Me. 1983). “The defendant contends that the trial justice erred at trial by (1) improperly instructing the jury on the elements of burglary; (2) not giving the jury a requested instruction on the offense of theft by unauthorized use, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983); (3) not giving a…”
State v. Horr, 2003 ME 110 (Me. 2003). “§ 2413(1) (1996), 3 theft by unauthorized use of property (Class D) in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983), 4 and attaching false motor vehicle plates (Class E) in violation of 29-A M.”
State of Maine v. Abdirahmon A. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41 (Me. 2023). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 360(1)(A) (2023). In light of that conversation, the corporal’s decision to have the vehicle towed, which was a major reason for the extended duration of the stop, was appropriate.”
State v. Raymond, 1999 ME 126 (Me. 1999). “1998), theft by unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (Class D) in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360(1)(A) (1983), and violation of a protective order (Class D) in violation of 5 M.”
State v. Tarmey, 2000 ME 23 (Me. 2000). “§ 303 (1983), 2 and for unauthorized use of property pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 360. After trial, the jury returned its verdict acquitting Tarmey of criminal restraint by a parent and convicting him of unauthorized use of property.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 360(1)(C) — 1 case
State v. Spearin, 428 A.2d 381 (Me. 1981). “In the instant case, the defendant did not have custody of the rental property for a lengthy period beyond the time for return.”
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.