As a former Davidson County prosecutor for three years, Kevin Kennedy prosecuted theft and vehicle-related cases and understands how prosecutors distinguish temporary unauthorized use from theft of a vehicle. Joyriding allegations can arise from borrowed cars, family disputes, rental or permission misunderstandings, employees using vehicles outside authorization, or situations where someone takes a vehicle without intending to keep it permanently.
Tennessee calls joyriding the unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles. It is a Class A misdemeanor when a person takes another’s vehicle without the owner’s consent but does not intend to deprive the owner of it. That lack of intent to deprive is what separates joyriding from theft of property.
What Is Joyriding in Tennessee?
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-106 provides that a person commits a Class A misdemeanor by taking another person’s automobile, airplane, motorcycle, bicycle, boat, or other vehicle without the owner’s consent when the person does not have the intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle.
The statute therefore covers temporary unauthorized use. If the State claims the accused intended to permanently or substantially deprive the owner of the vehicle, prosecutors may instead pursue theft of property, which can be a felony depending on value.
Joyriding Versus Auto Theft
The difference between joyriding and theft often turns on intent. Theft of property requires an intent to deprive the owner, while joyriding expressly applies when that intent is absent. A person who takes a vehicle for a short unauthorized trip and plans to return it presents a different legal theory from someone accused of stealing, selling, hiding, or abandoning the vehicle.
Intent is usually proven through circumstances. The length of time the vehicle was kept, statements, where it was found, whether the license plate or VIN was altered, whether the vehicle was damaged, and whether the accused attempted to sell or conceal it may all affect the State’s theory.
Lack of Consent
Joyriding requires proof that the vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent. Prior permission can be important. Family members, friends, romantic partners, employees, roommates, or regular drivers may have an established history of using a vehicle.
The defense should examine whether the owner previously allowed the accused to drive the vehicle, whether permission was limited by time or purpose, whether the permission was clearly revoked, and whether communications support the accused’s understanding.
What Vehicles Are Covered?
The statute is broader than automobiles. It expressly includes airplanes, motorcycles, bicycles, boats, and other vehicles. The same core elements apply: taking another person’s vehicle without consent and without an intent to deprive the owner.
The exact ownership and right to control the vehicle can become important where the vehicle is leased, financed, jointly used, owned by a business, or provided by an employer.
What Are the Penalties for Joyriding?
Joyriding is a Class A misdemeanor. A Class A misdemeanor in Tennessee can carry up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 unless another statute provides otherwise.
Restitution may also become an issue if the vehicle was damaged, towed, impounded, or otherwise caused financial loss. A conviction can affect employment, driving-related jobs, background checks, and future criminal cases.
Joyriding and Claim of Right
Tennessee’s theft statutes recognize a claim-of-right defense in certain circumstances. If the accused honestly believed there was a right to obtain or control the property as done, or honestly believed the owner would have consented, that can be important in disputes over vehicle use.
This issue may arise in family, employment, or shared-property situations where permission was informal or the parties disagree about who had the right to use the vehicle.
Common Defenses to Joyriding
Possible defenses include consent, honest belief in permission, mistaken identity, lack of proof that the accused took the vehicle, lack of ownership proof, claim of right, and unreliable witness or surveillance evidence.
Consent or Prior Permission
An owner’s later anger does not necessarily prove the use was unauthorized from the beginning. Text messages, call records, prior use, key access, insurance records, and witness testimony can help establish the parties’ actual arrangement.
Mistaken Identity
Vehicles may be taken when no one directly sees the driver. Surveillance footage may be poor, multiple people may have access to keys, and a vehicle can pass through several hands. The State must still prove that the accused was the person who took or exercised unauthorized control over it.
Joyriding as a Lesser Offense
In some cases originally charged as theft of a vehicle, the evidence may support joyriding instead if the State cannot prove an intent to deprive the owner. That distinction can be significant because joyriding is a misdemeanor while vehicle theft may be a felony based on value.
The defense should examine whether the accused returned the vehicle, left it where it could be recovered, communicated an intent to return it, or otherwise acted inconsistently with permanent deprivation.
How Kevin Kennedy Defends Joyriding Cases
Kevin begins by examining the history between the accused and the vehicle owner, prior permission, access to keys, communications, where the vehicle was taken, how long it was used, and where it was recovered. He reviews text messages, surveillance video, license-plate-reader records, GPS information, phone location data, witness statements, police reports, and any statements attributed to the accused.
His former-prosecutor experience helps him determine whether the evidence actually proves unauthorized use and whether the State is improperly treating a temporary-use dispute as felony theft. Depending on the facts, the defense may establish consent, claim of right, lack of identity, lack of intent to deprive, seek reduction from theft to joyriding, negotiate for dismissal or another resolution, or prepare the case for trial. A free and confidential case review with Kevin Kennedy Law Firm is available to anyone charged in Davidson County or nearby.
Legal references: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-103, 39-14-106, 39-14-107, and 40-35-111. This page is general information, not legal advice.