Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135 (2026)

Unauthorized use of a vehicle

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      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, 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
Cited in 363 cases (110 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 43× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). · cites it 13× “For crimes defined and set out in the Criminal Code — including ORS 164.135 — every “material element” of the offense ordinarily requires proof of a culpable mental state.”
State v. Taylor, 523 P.3d 696 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 18× “Washington County Circuit Court 21CR10213; A176138 523 P3d 696 During a test drive of a vehicle, defendant told the salesperson who had accompanied him that he had a gun and was taking the vehicle, and then drove away after the salesperson got out of the vehicle.”
State v. Eastep, 399 P.3d 979 (Or. 2017). · cites it 20× “ORS 164.135. At trial, he argued that the state had failed to prove that he had used another person’s “vehicle,” because the truck that he had arranged to sell was in a state of significant disrepair and was not currently operable.”
State v. Fuller, 463 P.3d 605 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 14× “” ORS 164.135 (2017).2 As we explained 1 Defendant separately appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree fail- ure to appear, ORS 162.”
State v. Haltom, 472 P.3d 246 (Or. 2020). · cites it 9× “However, ORS 164.135 was amended in 2019, Or Laws 2019, ch 530, § 1, and section (1)(a) of the statute no longer contains the “without consent of the owner” wording that was at the center of the Simonov opinion.”
State v. Douthitt, 576 P.2d 1262 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 18× “ORS 164.135. [1] The issue is whether defendant exercised control over a vehicle such that his conduct constituted an unauthorized use proscribed by the statute.”
State v. Stowell, 466 P.3d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “In this appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that its members needed to concur on whether defendant acted as a principal or as an aider and abettor to the charged offenses.”
State v. Jones, 196 P.3d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “055, and unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135. 1 Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal on both charges on the ground that the state failed to adduce evidence that he had a culpable mental state with respect to…”
State v. Byam, 393 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “395, in turn, provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing or attempting to commit theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle as defined in ORS 164.135 the person uses or threatens the immediate use of physical…”
State v. Horton, 535 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal mischief based on a separate incident in which she 1 In Case Number 20CR68459, defendant also was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135 (Count 1); she was acquitted of a robbery charge.”
State v. Brown, 531 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “270(1) (Count 1); unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135 (Count 2); identity theft, ORS 165.”
Show all 363 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1) — 32 cases
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “For crimes defined and set out in the Criminal Code — including ORS 164.135 — every “material element” of the offense ordinarily requires proof of a culpable mental state.”
State v. Stephens, 52 P.3d 1086 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Lobue, 466 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Taylor, 523 P.3d 696 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Washington County Circuit Court 21CR10213; A176138 523 P3d 696 During a test drive of a vehicle, defendant told the salesperson who had accompanied him that he had a gun and was taking the vehicle, and then drove away after the salesperson got out of the vehicle.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(A) — 1 case
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “For crimes defined and set out in the Criminal Code — including ORS 164.135 — every “material element” of the offense ordinarily requires proof of a culpable mental state.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(a) — 44 cases
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Taylor, 523 P.3d 696 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Washington County Circuit Court 21CR10213; A176138 523 P3d 696 During a test drive of a vehicle, defendant told the salesperson who had accompanied him that he had a gun and was taking the vehicle, and then drove away after the salesperson got out of the vehicle.”
State v. Haltom, 472 P.3d 246 (Or. 2020). “However, ORS 164.135 was amended in 2019, Or Laws 2019, ch 530, § 1, and section (1)(a) of the statute no longer contains the “without consent of the owner” wording that was at the center of the Simonov opinion.”
State v. Fuller, 463 P.3d 605 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” ORS 164.135 (2017).2 As we explained 1 Defendant separately appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree fail- ure to appear, ORS 162.”
State v. Stowell, 466 P.3d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “In this appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that its members needed to concur on whether defendant acted as a principal or as an aider and abettor to the charged offenses.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(a)(A) — 6 cases
State v. Huerta-Contreras, 560 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Huerta-Contreras, 336 Or. App. 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Rice, 337 Or. App. 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Rice, 337 Or. App. 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Almestica, 346 Or. App. 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(a)(B) — 5 cases
State v. Huerta-Contreras, 560 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Fitch, 559 P.3d 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Smith, 566 P.3d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Huerta-Contreras, 336 Or. App. 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Smith, 338 Or. App. 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(b) — 7 cases
State v. Taylor, 523 P.3d 696 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Washington County Circuit Court 21CR10213; A176138 523 P3d 696 During a test drive of a vehicle, defendant told the salesperson who had accompanied him that he had a gun and was taking the vehicle, and then drove away after the salesperson got out of the vehicle.”
State v. Fuller, 463 P.3d 605 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” ORS 164.135 (2017).2 As we explained 1 Defendant separately appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree fail- ure to appear, ORS 162.”
State v. Guillen, 344 Or. App. 546 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Guillen, 344 Or. App. 546 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Shannon, 345 Or. App. 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(c) — 8 cases
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Craine, 349 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Blue, 547 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Blue, 374 Or. 439 (Or. 2025).
State v. Shafer (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(1)(d) — 4 cases
State v. Shafer (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Smallwood, 347 Or. App. 474 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Smallwood, 347 Or. App. 474 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. McCarthy (Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(2) — 11 cases
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “For crimes defined and set out in the Criminal Code — including ORS 164.135 — every “material element” of the offense ordinarily requires proof of a culpable mental state.”
State v. Haltom, 472 P.3d 246 (Or. 2020). “However, ORS 164.135 was amended in 2019, Or Laws 2019, ch 530, § 1, and section (1)(a) of the statute no longer contains the “without consent of the owner” wording that was at the center of the Simonov opinion.”
State v. Vierria, 379 P.3d 667 (Klamath Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Hal, 7 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Batty, 819 P.2d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(2)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Fitch, 559 P.3d 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(i)(a) — 1 case
State v. Byam, 393 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “395, in turn, provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing or attempting to commit theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle as defined in ORS 164.135 the person uses or threatens the immediate use of physical…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(l)(a) — 20 cases
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Simonov, 368 P.3d 11 (Or. 2016). “For crimes defined and set out in the Criminal Code — including ORS 164.135 — every “material element” of the offense ordinarily requires proof of a culpable mental state.”
State v. Eastep, 399 P.3d 979 (Or. 2017). “ORS 164.135. At trial, he argued that the state had failed to prove that he had used another person’s “vehicle,” because the truck that he had arranged to sell was in a state of significant disrepair and was not currently operable.”
State v. Byam, 393 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “395, in turn, provides, in part: “(1) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing or attempting to commit theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle as defined in ORS 164.135 the person uses or threatens the immediate use of physical…”
State v. Pusztai, 348 P.3d 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(l)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Eastep, 399 P.3d 979 (Or. 2017). “ORS 164.135. At trial, he argued that the state had failed to prove that he had used another person’s “vehicle,” because the truck that he had arranged to sell was in a state of significant disrepair and was not currently operable.”
State v. Trow, 642 P.2d 1178 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(l)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Civil, 388 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, entered after a bench trial.”
State v. Paget, 896 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Boyd, 560 P.2d 689 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.135(l)(e) — 1 case
State v. Paget, 896 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
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.