The police say you, or someone in your family, used a car without permission. Now there’s a court date for “use of a motor vehicle without authority.” That’s stressful, especially when the car belongs to a friend, a relative, or a rental company. Here’s what the charge actually is.
I’ll take it in the order a case moves: what the law says, how people end up charged, what the Commonwealth has to prove, where it’s heard, the penalties, your license, how this differs from car theft, and where a defense comes from.
What Use Without Authority Means
It’s a crime to use a motor vehicle without authority when you know the use isn’t authorized.
The law is one clause in G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a): “whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished ….” The same clause then sets penalties for a second offense and for a third or later offense.
That paragraph also covers other driving crimes, like negligent operation and leaving the scene of property damage. Use without authority has its own penalties.
How People End Up Facing This Charge
This charge can grow out of an everyday situation involving someone else’s car.
- A rental car kept past the return date. The rental period ends, the car isn’t back on time, and the rental company calls the police. The claim is that your use continued after your authority to use the car ended. A separate statute, G.L. c. 266, § 87, covers a renter who, intending to place the car beyond the owner’s control, fails to return it within ten days after the rental ends. More on that below.
- A friend’s car you borrowed and didn’t bring back when expected. You had permission, but you kept the car longer than your friend expected, and your friend reported it. The questions are whether and when your use became “without authority,” and whether you knew it.
- A parent’s car taken or kept. Your son or daughter took your car, or kept it after being told to bring it back, and you or another family member reported it. The claim is that the use was without the parent’s authority.
- Going beyond the permission you had. The car was lent for one errand, and it was used for another trip or handed to someone else to drive.
- A work vehicle used for personal reasons. You drove a company vehicle somewhere your employer says wasn’t allowed.
- Riding in or driving a car someone else took. The car turns out to have been taken without permission. The statute’s word “uses” and its knowledge requirement are at the center of that situation.
- A breakup or a fight over a shared car. The relationship ends, and the registered owner reports the car as used without permission.
Every one of these comes back to the same three questions: Was the car used? Was the use without authority? Did the person know it?
“Uses” a Motor Vehicle
The statute makes it a crime to “use” a motor vehicle, and it doesn’t define that word.
Other crimes in § 24(2)(a), like negligent operation, apply to a person who “operates” a vehicle. This clause says “uses” instead. The statute doesn’t say whether “uses” means only the driver or anyone else in the car.
“Motor vehicle” is defined in G.L. c. 90, § 1 as “all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power,” with listed exceptions. If what was used doesn’t fit that definition, this statute doesn’t apply. See what counts as a motor vehicle.
“Without Authority”
The use has to be “without authority,” and the Commonwealth has to prove it.
The statute doesn’t define “authority.” In everyday words, it means permission, or the right to do something. The statute doesn’t say who has to give permission, and it doesn’t list how permission is given or taken back.
“Knowing That Such Use Is Unauthorized”
Knowledge is part of the crime: you must know the use isn’t authorized.
“Knowing” means being aware of a fact. Here, the fact is that the use wasn’t authorized. It isn’t enough for the Commonwealth to show that the use turned out to be unauthorized. It has to prove you knew. For more, see my article on knowledge in criminal law.
What the Commonwealth Must Prove
The Commonwealth has to prove each of these parts beyond a reasonable doubt.
- You used a vehicle.
- It was a motor vehicle.
- The use was without authority.
- You knew the use was unauthorized.
For a second offense, the Commonwealth also has to prove the earlier offense. For the third-offense penalty, it has to prove two earlier offenses and the five-year timing explained below. See what is a subsequent offense.
Those parts come straight from the statute. If the Commonwealth can’t prove one of them, the charge fails.
Where the Case Is Heard
The district court can hear every level of this charge.
Under G.L. c. 218, § 26, the district courts share jurisdiction with the superior court over “all misdemeanors, except libels” and “all felonies punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years.” The longest state prison term in this clause is five years. Under G.L. c. 218, § 27, a district court “may not impose a sentence to the state prison.”
Penalties
The penalties go up for a second offense and again for a third offense within five years.
First offense:
- A fine of $50 to $500, or
- Imprisonment for 30 days to 2 years, or
- Both.
Second offense:
- Up to 5 years in state prison, or 30 days to 2½ years in a house of correction, or
- A fine of up to $1,000, or
- Both.
Third or later offense “committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses”:
- A fine of $200 to $1,000, or
- 6 months to 2½ years in a house of correction, or 2½ to 5 years in state prison, or
- Both.
The five-year window for a third offense runs from the older of your two most recent earlier offenses. These are the limits the legislature set. They don’t tell you what will happen in your case.
What a Conviction Means for Your License
A conviction puts your license at risk: the Registrar must revoke it unless the court recommends otherwise.
- Under G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(b), the court reports the conviction to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, who “may in any event, and shall unless the court or magistrate recommends otherwise, revoke immediately the license or right to operate.” An appeal doesn’t stop the revocation.
- If you own or exclusively control a motor vehicle, the Registrar can also revoke its registration.
- Under § 24(2)(c), you can’t get a new license until 1 year after the revocation for a first offense, or 3 years for a later conviction. If the case ends in your favor, the Registrar can issue a new license.
How This Is Different From Motor Vehicle Theft
Use without authority is about using a car without permission; motor vehicle theft is about stealing it, and the penalties are very different.
Motor vehicle theft is G.L. c. 266, § 28(a). It covers whoever “steals a motor vehicle,” whoever receives or possesses one “knowing or having reason to know the same to have been stolen,” and whoever “takes a motor vehicle without the authority of the owner and steals from it any of its parts or accessories.”
The difference is intent. Chapter 266 doesn’t define “steals,” but the general larceny statute, G.L. c. 266, § 30, speaks of acting “with intent to steal.” Massachusetts courts have explained that larceny of a motor vehicle requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. Use without authority has no intent-to-steal language at all. It asks only whether you used the car, without authority, knowing it. Nothing in § 24(2)(a) asks whether you meant to keep the car or bring it back.
Compare the penalties:
- Use without authority, first offense: a fine of $50 to $500, or 30 days to 2 years, or both. State prison, up to 5 years, appears only for a second or later offense. No new license for 1 year after a first offense.
- Motor vehicle theft: up to 15 years in state prison, or up to 2½ years in a jail or house of correction, or a fine of up to $15,000, or both.
- Motor vehicle theft can’t be placed on file or continued without a finding.
- For a second or later theft offense, the sentence can’t be reduced below 1 year, and there’s no probation, parole, furlough, or work release, apart from narrow temporary-release exceptions.
- Theft also means license revocation: no new license for 1 year after a first offense, or 5 years after a later one.
Rental cars have their own statute. G.L. c. 266, § 87, larceny of leased or rented property, covers a renter who, “with the intent to place such property beyond the control of the owner,” conceals it, fails or refuses to return it within ten days after the rental ends, or sells it without written consent. The penalty is a fine of up to $1,000 or up to 1 year, or both, plus restitution to the owner.
Which statute is charged matters, because the elements and penalties are different. See also larceny by stealing.
Defenses Built on the Statute’s Words
Every part the Commonwealth can’t prove is a defense. These are the questions the statute raises.
- Did you “use” the vehicle?
- Is it a “motor vehicle” under G.L. c. 90, § 1?
- Was the use really “without authority”?
- Did you know the use was unauthorized, or did you believe you had permission?
- For a higher penalty, is the earlier offense proved, and does a third offense fall within the five-year window?
- Is the right statute charged, such as § 24(2)(a) instead of G.L. c. 266, § 28, and are its elements met?
These aren’t a checklist for any one case. They’re the points where the statute puts the burden on the Commonwealth.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this the same as stealing a car?
No. Stealing a car is a separate crime under G.L. c. 266, § 28, with much higher penalties. Use without authority has no intent-to-steal language.
Will I lose my license?
A conviction is reported to the Registrar, who must revoke your license unless the court recommends otherwise, and can revoke it even then. After a revocation, you can’t get a new license for 1 year after a first offense, or 3 years after a later one.
Facing a Use Without Authority Charge? Talk to a Lawyer
This charge turns on whether you used the car, whether you had permission, and what you knew. It can also cost you your license. You don’t have to face it alone. The Law Office of William J. Barabino in Medford has over 23 years of experience in Massachusetts criminal defense and represents clients throughout Greater Boston.
Call 781-393-5900 to talk about your charge and your options.
Related Articles
Disclaimer
This article is for general educational information about Massachusetts criminal law. It is not legal advice for your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change. For advice about a specific case, speak with a licensed Massachusetts attorney.
