Cases

State v. HILGEFORT (2021)

John Hilgefort (“Hilgefort”) pled guilty to Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor,[1] and Leaving the Scene of an Accident, as a Class B misdemeanor.

In re JS, 48 NE 3d 356 – Ind: Court of Appeals (2015)

Former CDL holder sought to block the Indiana BMV from reporting an expunged OWI conviction to the Commercial Driver’s License Information System. The trial court granted the request. The Court of Appeals held that federal law (49 C.F.R. § 384.226) preempts state expungement statutes and requires reporting of CDL-related convictions. Reversed and remanded.

Hazelwood v. State, 3 N.E.3d 39 (2014)

Recidivist driving violator filed petition for rescission of lifetime suspension of his driving privileges. The Circuit Court denied petition. Violator appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] rehabilitative justice provision of state constitution did not preclude application of license reinstatement statute to bar from applying for rescission of lifetime suspension, and [2] application of license reinstatement statute to bar violator from seeking for rescission did not constitute “punishment,” within scope of proportionality clause of state constitution and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Affirmed.

State v. Bryant, 4 N.E.3d 808 (2014)

Defendant was charged with Class D felony operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator (HTV). The Superior Court, Hendricks County, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. State appealed. The Court of Appeals held that defendant was properly charged with Class D felony operating a vehicle as HTV. Reversed and remanded.

Hassfurther v. State, 988 N.E.2d 811 (2013)

Driver filed petition for judicial review of administrative license suspension following his refusal to consent to chemical testing for intoxication following arrest for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The Superior Court denied petition. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] officer had probable cause to believe that driver was operating vehicle while intoxicated, and thus had probable cause to offer driver chemical test for intoxication, and [2] driver failed to establish that he was not adequately informed about license suspension if he refused chemical test. Affirmed.

Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (2012)

Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, and his driver’s license was suspended. Transfer was granted. The Supreme Court held that defendant, who was automobile passenger and rode down highway with jar of marijuana between his legs, used vehicle in committing offense of possessing marijuana, as would require suspension of license. Affirmed.

Thomas v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 979 N.E.2d 169 (2012)

Motorist filed petition for judicial review of decision of Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), determining that motorist was a habitual traffic violator (HTV) and suspending his driving privileges for ten years. The Superior Court denied the petition, and motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] general ten-year statute of limitations applied to BMV’s determination that motorist qualified as HTV, and [2] statute of limitations began to run on date of motorist’s third conviction for a traffic violation. Affirmed.

Orndorff v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 982 N.E.2d 312 (2012)

Driver sought review of decision of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), suspending her driver’s license for ten years based on her status as a habitual traffic violator (HTV). The Circuit Court, Monroe County, denied driver’s request for preliminary injunction. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] eight-year delay in imposing suspension threatened the public interest, given that license suspension would cause driver to lose her job and thrust her and her family into poverty, thus supporting driver’s claim of laches; [2] driver presented a prima facie case of an articulable public policy interest that outweighed public policy supporting denying laches, thus supporting injunction; [3] one’s status as an HTV is not dependent upon the person’s possession of a valid driver’s license; and [4] driver had no adequate remedy at law, thus supporting injunction. Reversed and remanded.

Hory v. State, 954 N.E.2d 475 (2011)

Defendant was convicted in a bench trial in the Adams Superior Court of illegal parking. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that federal motor safety regulations did not expressly or impliedly preempt local traffic safety laws, and thus defendant could be convicted of illegal parking even if defendant was a trucker engaged in interstate commerce. Affirmed.

Majors v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1112 (2011)

Defendant convicted of driving a 28,000-pound oil rig through a red light, colliding with another vehicle and killing the other driver, appealed his 11-year sentence as inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. The Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the sentence.

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. McNeil, 931 N.E.2d 897 (2010)

Motorist petitioned for judicial review of determination of Bureau Of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that motorist, following his most recent conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), was an habitual traffic violator (HTV) and thus eligible for ten-year driver’s license suspension. The Circuit Court, Allen County, reinstated motorist’s driving privileges upon finding that the two-year statute of limitations applied such that the passage of more than two years from the accrual of the cause of action to the notice of suspension barred the BMV from suspending motorist’s driver’s license. The BMV appealed. The Court of Appeals held that administrative action to suspend motorist’s driver’s license did not constitute an action for “a forfeiture of penalty given by statute” as was necessary for two-year statute of limitations to apply. Reversed.

Illinois Bulk Carrier, Inc. v. Jackson, 908 N.E.2d 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

States that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations eliminate the distinction between independent contractors and employees so that an attempt by motor carriers to avoid liability simply by labeling a driver as an independent contractor is unavailing.

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Orange, 889 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

Holder of commercial driver’s license (CDL) who was convicted of operating a noncommercial vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement could be granted probationary driving privileges to drive noncommercial vehicles, even though he was ineligible to drive a commercial motor vehicle under state statute incorporating Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA); MCSIA did not restrict CDL holder’s right to drive noncommercial vehicles, and state law could not be more restrictive than MCSIA.

Silverman v. Fifer, 837 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)

Under preemption doctrine, federal statute precluded Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles from issuing restricted commercial driver’s license based on hardship, to over-the-road truck driver whose commercial driver’s license had been suspended because he had refused to take breath test for evidence of intoxication.

Frohardt v. Bassett, 788 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

Penske rental truck that driver was operating when truck hit motorist’s vehicle was not a “commercial motor vehicle” pursuant to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and similar state statute, and thus driver was not required to possess a commercial driver’s license when operating truck, since truck weighed less than minimum weight for a commercial motor vehicle, and driver was not an employee of Penske.

Commissioner, Dept. of Revenue v. Partlow, 769 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

Driver, who had been diagnosed with epilepsy as a young teenager and had not had any seizures relating to such illness for fifteen years, was medically qualified to hold commercial driver’s license under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations where driver’s physician testified it was not likely that driver’s condition continued to require anti-seizure medication and that the amount of medication prescribed for driver was not likely to be therapeutic. Driver’s physician also testified that the risk of driver experiencing another seizure was extremely remote.

Gibson v. Hand, 756 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)

Appellant-Respondent, Gary Gibson, Commissioner, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee-Petitioner’s, Richard Hand, Verified Petition for Hardship Driver’s License. Reversed.

Statutes

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Disqualifications (Serious Traffic Offenses)

Disqualifications (Railroad Crossings)

Disqualifications (Out of Service Orders)

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions

Resources

News

Broadcast Library

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode One

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode One: An Overview of Human Trafficking for Judges – August 27, 2025

This episode is the first in a four-part series on human trafficking and what judges need to know to address this issue in their courts and communities. All episodes in the series were recorded during a judicial human trafficking leadership workshop held at The National Judicial College. This first episode focuses on the definition of human trafficking and when and where judges are likely to encounter victims and others.

Guests include:

Judge Gayle Williams-Byers, a judicial fellow at the NJC and a retired judge from Ohio. Aaron Ann Cole of Funfsinn of Hicks & Funfsinn in Lexington, Kentucky. Previously, she worked as a prosecutor in Cook County, Illinois, in the special prosecution unit in the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, and in the special prosecution unit of the Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. She is on the faculty at the National Judicial College.

Judge Chris Turner, a Magistrate Judge in the Third Judicial District in Shawnee County Kansas.

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode Two

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Two: The Judge’s Guide to Understanding the Systems Behind Human Trafficking – August 29, 2025

This is the second episode in a series designed to help judges understand human trafficking. This episode focuses on the often complex systems behind human trafficking and help explain some of the challenges in adjudicating these cases.

Guests include:

Dr. Jeanne Allert, the founder and director of the Institute for Shelter Care, a national initiative to address gaps in service and quality for victims of exploitation. She is also the founder of The Samaritan Women. She holds a PhD in Counseling and Psychological Studies.

Lindsey Lane, the director of strategic engagement at the Human Trafficking Institute in Georgia. She formerly was a human trafficking prosecutor and assistant district attorney in North Carolina and a senior assistant district attorney in Tennessee’s Third Judicial District.

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode Three

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Three: How Bias May Prevent Judges From Recognizing Human Trafficking – September 25, 2025

This episode continues our series on human trafficking and what judges need to know and what they can do to help address this issue in their communities. It explores how biases may prevent judges from recognizing human trafficking in their courtrooms.

Guests include:

Dr. Joseph A. Vitriol, an assistant professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He holds a Ph.D. in social-personality and political psychology from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and a BA/MA in forensic psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Dr. Christine McDermott, who is a research fellow at the National Judicial College. She earned her Ph.D. and master’s in interdisciplinary social psychology from the University of Nevada, Reno and her bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.

Come To Order – Human Trafficking – Episode Four

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Four: How The Trucking Industry Is Fighting Human Trafficking & What Judges Need To Know – September 26, 2025

This is the final episode of our four-part series on human trafficking and what judges need to know and what they can do to help address this issue in their communities. This episode focuses on how the trucking industry is fighting human trafficking and how that may impact how cases end up before a judge.

Guests include:

Jake Elovirta, the Director of Enforcement Programs for the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Judge Chris Turner, who is a Magistrate Judge and director of Judicial Outreach in the Third Judicial District in Shawnee County Kansas; and Dylan Wecht, a Public Sector Engagement Specialist for Truckers Against Trafficking.

Untitled design (6)

Why Judge? “Unmasking” Procedural Fairness and Empathy for Self-Represented Litigants in Court

Course Description:

This webcast explores the concept of “masking” by self-represented litigants (SRLs) holding a Commercial Driver License (CDL), and its impact on procedural fairness. Masking occurs in everyday court adjudication procedures. When adjudicating SRLs, the language needs to be and appear “respectable” and avoid negative judgments within the courtroom. The presentation will examine how court discretion, implicit expectations of respectability, and the absence of active listening and empathy can impact SRLs’ judgements. Participants will learn to exercise these abilities while still upholding judicial ethical duties. Participants will gain insights into fostering courtroom practices that uphold procedural fairness while recognizing and responding to masking behaviors.

 

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

● Define masking in the context of CDL self-represented litigants and explain how it impacts procedural fairness and perception of credibility in court.

● Describe how respectability norms, court discretion, and language expectations can denigrate the challenges with CDL-SRLs and identify strategies to mitigate these barriers while maintaining judicial ethics.

● Demonstrate the use of active listening and empathy to recognize and appropriately respond to masking behaviors with ethos, fostering fair and respectful courtroom interactions.

road-gb9eefbb1f_1920

Impaired Driving and Alcohol/Drug Issues within Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL) and Commercial Motor Vehicle Cases

Course Description:

This national webcast provides judges with a comprehensive overview of current laws and emerging issues related to impaired driving within the context of Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL) and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) cases. Topics include the federal and state legal frameworks governing alcohol and drug use among commercial drivers, with a particular focus on marijuana-related offenses and enforcement challenges.

 

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

● Identify current CDL/CMV alcohol and drug impaired driving elements and issues;

● Explain the concept of “masking” within CDL/CMV cases and recognize its state & federal impacts; and

● Reinforce foundational knowledge of current compliance requirements for CDL/CMV impaired driving cases.