Background
At approximately 4:30 a.m. on October 6, 2025, a police officer saw Layke D. Leonard accelerate away from a traffic signal. The officer described Leonard as “peeling out” and heard his tires squeal. He stopped Leonard and issued a citation for making an unsafe start under Indiana Code section 9-21-8-23. That statute prohibits starting a stopped, standing, or parked vehicle before the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
Following a bench trial, the Henry Circuit Court found that Leonard committed the Class C infraction and imposed a $1 fine plus $139.50 in court costs. Leonard appealed, arguing that tire noise by itself did not prove the required lack of reasonable safety. Although an infraction is civil and the State’s trial burden is only a preponderance of the evidence, an appellate sufficiency challenge is reviewed under the criminal-case standard: the reviewing court considers the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment without reweighing evidence or reassessing witness credibility.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed because the State did not offer evidence that Leonard’s departure actually threatened him or anyone else. Judge May relied on two earlier unsafe-start decisions that distinguish tire noise from unsafe vehicle movement. In Dora v. State, spinning and squealing tires were insufficient without evidence of danger. By contrast, Beasey v. State upheld an unsafe-start finding where a vehicle fishtailed while its tires spun and squealed. Fishtailing supplied evidence that the driver had lost control and created a danger.
The officer testified that squealing tires generally indicate lost traction and, in his experience, create an unsafe condition. But he did not testify that Leonard’s car fishtailed, moved erratically, interfered with traffic, or otherwise traveled in a dangerous manner. The officer’s generalized explanation could not replace evidence about what Leonard’s vehicle actually did. Under Dora, the squeal alone did not establish that Leonard started before he could do so with reasonable safety.
The court therefore held the evidence insufficient as a matter of law and reversed the infraction judgment. The opinion does not create a rule that tire squealing can never support an unsafe-start citation. Rather, it requires some additional evidence connecting the acceleration to danger—such as erratic movement, loss of control, proximity to people or vehicles, or another circumstance showing that the start could not be made safely.
That distinction follows the statutory text. The legislature did not define an unsafe start by reference to engine speed, acceleration, or a loss of traction in isolation. It asked whether the movement could be made with reasonable safety. The State therefore had to prove the safety element through facts specific to Leonard’s departure, and the record contained none beyond the sound of the tires.
Key Takeaways
- Squealing or spinning tires, without more, do not prove an unsafe start under Indiana Code section 9-21-8-23.
- The State must connect the manner of departure to an actual safety concern; fishtailing or other evidence of lost control can supply that missing link.
- An officer’s general opinion that squealing tires indicate lost traction does not establish statutory danger when the officer observed no erratic or hazardous movement.
- Traffic infractions are civil proceedings proved by a preponderance of the evidence, but Indiana appellate courts review sufficiency claims using the same deferential framework applied in criminal cases.
Why It Matters
Leonard gives Indiana motorists and traffic practitioners a clear evidentiary dividing line. The unsafe-start statute addresses safety, not noise or aggressive acceleration standing alone. A citation requires proof of circumstances showing that the driver could not start with reasonable safety. Prosecutors and law-enforcement witnesses should therefore document the vehicle’s path, nearby traffic and pedestrians, loss of control, and any other observable hazard rather than relying solely on tire squeal.
The decision also illustrates why even a low-dollar infraction can yield meaningful appellate guidance. Leonard faced only a nominal fine, but the Court of Appeals enforced the statutory element and preserved the distinction between conduct that sounds unsafe and evidence that proves unsafe movement. For defense counsel, the opinion supports a focused motion for judgment when the State’s case describes acceleration or tire noise but offers no evidence of danger to the driver or others.