Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation Lawyer | ARS 13-1803

What Is Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation in Arizona?

Unlawful use of means of transportation is the charge Arizona prosecutors file when someone takes or uses a vehicle without the owner’s permission but cannot be shown to have meant to keep it. Police and prosecutors call it joyriding. The statute, A.R.S. § 13-1803, describes two separate crimes:

• Paragraph 1, the driver or taker. Knowingly taking unauthorized control over another person’s means of transportation, without intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. This is a class 5 felony.
• Paragraph 2, the passenger. Knowingly being transported in, or physically located in, a vehicle you know or have reason to know is in someone else’s unlawful possession under paragraph 1 or under the theft statute, A.R.S. § 13-1814. This is a class 6 felony.

“Means of transportation” means any vehicle under A.R.S. § 13-1801, and Arizona defines a vehicle broadly in A.R.S. § 13-105 as any device that carries people or property on a highway, waterway or airway, other than devices moved by human power or that run on rails. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats and ATVs all qualify. A bicycle does not.

The word that decides most of these cases is knowingly. The State has to prove you knew you did not have authorization to take the vehicle, or, for a passenger, that you knew or had reason to know the car was being used unlawfully. Honest belief that you had permission is not a technicality. It goes to the heart of the charge.

How Is Joyriding Different From Theft of Means of Transportation?

Joyriding and theft of means of transportation share every element except one: intent to permanently deprive. Theft of means of transportation under A.R.S. § 13-1814 is a class 3 felony. Unlawful use under § 13-1803 is a class 5 felony. The same drive in the same car can be charged either way, and the difference is years of prison exposure.

Two parts of the theft statute catch people who think they are only facing a joyriding charge. First, § 13-1814(A)(2) makes it theft to convert a vehicle that was entrusted to you for a limited purpose, so a borrowed car that is not returned on the agreed terms can be charged as the class 3 felony. Second, “deprive” under A.R.S. § 13-1801 is not limited to keeping something forever. It includes withholding property for so long that a substantial part of its value or usefulness is lost. Keep a car for weeks and prosecutors will argue the deprivation was permanent enough.

Ranges come from A.R.S. § 13-702(D) for a first felony that is not dangerous and not repetitive. Attempt is classified one step below the completed offense under A.R.S. § 13-1001(C), and a class 1 misdemeanor carries up to six months in jail under A.R.S. § 13-707. For the theft side of the ladder, see our guide to vehicle theft charges in Arizona.

In practice, Maricopa County prosecutors often charge § 13-1814 first and treat § 13-1803 as the plea target. That is why we do not treat a joyriding offer as a gift. If the evidence never supported intent to permanently deprive, the class 5 felony was the correct charge from day one, and the negotiation should start below it, not at it.

Can a Passenger Be Charged With Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation?

Yes. Paragraph 2 of A.R.S. § 13-1803 makes it a class 6 felony to be transported in, or simply be physically located in, a vehicle you know or have reason to know is in another person’s unlawful possession. You do not have to drive. You do not have to touch the keys. Sitting in the back seat is enough if the State can prove what you knew.

The phrase “has reason to know” is what prosecutors lean on. Defense attorneys commonly see the same facts offered as proof: a punched ignition, a broken window, a screwdriver in the column, a driver who is visibly too young to own the car, or a ride that started at 3 a.m. from a parking lot nobody had a reason to be in. None of those facts is conclusive. Many people ride in cars they know nothing about, and the burden is on the State to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, not on you to explain why you did not ask.

The passenger charge is also where the class 6 undesignated option matters most. Under A.R.S. § 13-604, a court can leave a class 6 felony undesignated, place the person on probation, and later enter it as a misdemeanor if probation is completed. We explain how that works on our class 6 undesignated felony page.

Is Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation a Felony? What Are the Penalties?

Unlawful use of means of transportation is always a felony in Arizona. The driver charge is a class 5 felony and the passenger charge is a class 6 felony, and there is no misdemeanor version of the completed offense. Sentencing for a first offense is governed by A.R.S. § 13-702(D):

• Class 5 felony (driver): mitigated 6 months, minimum 9 months, presumptive 1.5 years, maximum 2 years, aggravated 2.5 years.
• Class 6 felony (passenger): mitigated 4 months, minimum 6 months, presumptive 1 year, maximum 1.5 years, aggravated 2 years.

Those are prison ranges, but prison is not mandatory for a first, non-dangerous unlawful use conviction. Probation is available, and under A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(4) a term of probation for a class 5 or 6 felony can last up to three years, with jail as a possible condition. Restitution for any damage to the vehicle or its contents is required under A.R.S. § 13-603(C), and a court can extend probation to collect it under § 13-902(C).

Prior felony convictions change everything. Under A.R.S. § 13-703, a class 5 felony with one historical prior carries a presumptive 2.25 years and an aggravated 3.75 years, and with two priors the presumptive is 5 years and the aggravated 7.5 years. A class 6 felony with two priors carries a presumptive 3.75 years. If you have any felony history, the first question is whether the State can actually prove the priors it is alleging, and we audit those records before anything else.

What If a Friend Let Me Drive the Car?

“My friend let me drive the car” is the most common fact pattern we see in unlawful use cases, and it is often a defense rather than a confession. The charge requires taking control without authorization. If the person who handed you the keys had authority to lend the vehicle, you did not commit the crime, even if the registered owner was upset afterward.

The cases get hard in three situations, and each one has a different answer:

1. The person who gave you permission did not own the car. A roommate, a cousin or a girlfriend hands over a car that belongs to a parent or a partner. Whether you “knew” the lender lacked authority is the contested fact. Who normally drove the car, whether you had borrowed it before, and whether the owner had ever objected all matter.
2. Permission was real, then the relationship fell apart. An ex-partner or a former friend reports the car stolen after an argument. Text messages, call logs and prior lending history often show the permission existed when you took the car. A later change of heart is not a crime.
3. You had the car longer than agreed, or crashed it. This is the dangerous one. Keeping a borrowed car past the agreed term is what § 13-1814(A)(2) calls conversion, and prosecutors can charge it as class 3 theft. A crash adds restitution and sometimes other charges. The defense work here is proving the original authorization and the actual timeline, so the case is at most unlawful use and ideally not a crime at all.

In every one of these situations, the mistake that converts a defensible case into a conviction is the same: trying to explain it to the officer at the scene. Statements about “I was going to bring it back” sound like a defense and get used as an admission that you knew you lacked permission.

What Defenses Work Against an Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation Charge?

The defenses that work are the ones aimed at an element the State must prove. In Arizona courts, these are the arguments that actually move unlawful use cases:

• You had authorization. Express permission, implied permission from a pattern of lending, or permission from someone with authority to give it. This is a complete defense to the driver charge.
• You did not know, and had no reason to know. The passenger charge rises or falls on knowledge. The State has to show what you noticed, not what a careful person might have noticed.
• You never took “control.” Control under A.R.S. § 13-1801 means acting to exclude others from using their property. Sitting in a parked car, moving it a few feet out of a driveway at someone’s request, or being near a vehicle someone else drove is not the same as taking control of it.
• Mistaken identity. Many joyriding arrests happen hours after the drive, from a plate reader hit, a doorbell camera or a vague description. The question becomes who was driving, and the State’s identification evidence is often thin.
• Suppression. A traffic stop without reasonable suspicion, a search of the car without a lawful basis, or a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings can take the key evidence out of the case.
• Intent, when the charge is theft. When the State has filed § 13-1814, showing that nothing supports intent to permanently deprive moves the case to unlawful use at most. Where the car was found, how long you had it, and whether it was being driven normally rather than stripped or hidden all matter.

What Happens After an Unlawful Use Arrest in Maricopa County?

An unlawful use arrest in Maricopa County usually starts with a traffic stop, a plate-reader alert or an owner’s stolen-vehicle report, and ends with a booking at the 4th Avenue Jail or a city holding facility. Because the charge is a felony, the case goes to the Maricopa County Superior Court after an initial appearance, where release conditions are set. Our post on how long police can hold you before arraignment walks through that first day.

From there, the pattern defense attorneys commonly see is this: the police report calls it a stolen vehicle, the complaint charges § 13-1814 or both statutes together, and the first plea offer is unlawful use as a class 5 felony with probation. Whether that offer is good depends entirely on what the evidence shows about authorization and knowledge. A case with a plausible permission defense and no admissions should not end in a felony plea; see how unlawful use cases get dismissed. A case with a confession and a punched ignition is a different negotiation, and the goal shifts to a class 6 undesignated outcome and keeping any jail term short.

Getting counsel involved before charges are filed matters more in these cases than most. Prosecutors review vehicle cases for the intent element before deciding between the theft and unlawful use statutes, and a defense submission that documents the permission history can change which charge is filed, or whether one is filed at all.

Can an Unlawful Use Conviction Be Sealed or Set Aside?

Usually yes, once the sentence is complete. Arizona allows a person convicted of unlawful use of means of transportation to apply to set aside the judgment under A.R.S. § 13-905 after probation or the sentence is finished, and to petition to seal the case records under A.R.S. § 13-911 after a waiting period that runs from discharge: five years for a class 5 or 6 felony, and three years if the offense ends up designated a class 1 misdemeanor.

That waiting period is one more reason the class 6 undesignated outcome is worth fighting for. A conviction that becomes a misdemeanor on completion of probation is sealable two years sooner and is not a felony on applications in the meantime. For the broader picture, see our Arizona theft crimes defense page and the statute text on our A.R.S. § 13-1803 reference page.

How Tamou Law Group Defends Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation Cases

Pre-charge advocacy. Vehicle cases often sit with a detective or a charging prosecutor for weeks before a complaint is filed. That window is where we document the permission history, present the lending pattern and the messages, and argue that the facts do not support theft and may not support any charge. A case that is declined or filed as unlawful use instead of theft is a case we never have to win at trial.

Disclosure strategy. Once a case is filed, we demand the full file: body-worn camera, the plate-reader or GPS data that triggered the stop, the owner’s stolen-vehicle affidavit required by § 13-1814(C), the forensic swabs and any statements. The affidavit and the owner’s first call to police frequently contain the admission that the car had been lent before, and that is where a knowledge defense is born.

Plea and collateral analysis. If a resolution makes sense, we negotiate for the charge and the designation, not just the sentence. A class 6 undesignated plea, a deferred prosecution where available, or a misdemeanor on an attempt theory each carries different consequences for firearms, employment, immigration and sealing, and we walk through each before you sign anything. Tamou Law Group handles these cases statewide from our Phoenix and Scottsdale offices.