This paper is a legal analysis composition, written as a final examination for the spring 2015 term at Nassau Community College. We were given a fictional scenario. The following analysis is based on the “CIRIP” pattern—CIRIP stands for Conclusion, Issue, Rule, Interweaving of facts with the law, and Policy purpose(s). I typed up this composition based on the original handwritten source text. Slight modifications were done for precision.

1. Law 311: Legal Writing& Analysis(NassauCommunityCollege)
Instructor:EllenPeppard,Esq.
Spring2015 term
StephenCheng
This paperis a legal analysiscomposition,written asa final examination forthespring 2015 term at
Nassau CommunityCollege.Wewere given a fictional scenario.The following analysisisbased on the
“CIRIP”pattern—CIRIPstandsforConclusion,Issue, Rule,Interweaving of factswith thelaw,and Policy
purpose(s).
I typed up this composition based on theoriginal handwritten sourcetext.Slightmodificationsweredone
forprecision.
Stephen Cheng
July 28, 2019
Conclusion:The appellantA.Rodriguez(AlexanderEmmanuelRodriguez a/k/aA-Rod) appealeda
convictionfortransporting“AR”hoverboardsacrossstate lineswithoutpayingcommercial taxes. He did
so on the groundsthat hovercraftsuchas “AR” hoverboardsdonotcount as motor vehiclesunder state
and federal laws.Amongtheselawsare the McBoylev.United States decision,the National Motor
Vehicle TheftAct,andthe Tariff Act.The McBoyle decisionreferencesbothacts.Althoughthe same
decisionappearstoexonerateA-Rod,itrestsonhistorical time-boundconceptionsthatmayprove out
of date.Furthermore,the statutesreferencedin McBoyleare notinA-Rod’sfavor.
The trial court conviction A-Rodandthe New YorkState Court of Appealsupheldthatconviction.The
Supreme Courtof the UnitedStatesmay alsoupholdthe convictionandconsiderthe McBoyledecision’s
discussiononmotorvehiclestobe updated.
Issue: Doesa hoverboard,such as the “AR brand”, more generallyclassifiedas“hovercraft”,countasa
motor vehicle?
Rule: A “motor vehicle”is:1) self-propelling(National MotorVehicleTheftAct);
2) not designedtorunon rails(National MotorVehicleTheftAct); and
3) a conveyance thatworksonland,water,or air (inetymological terms,intermsof the Tariff Actof
September22,1922, c. 356, § 401 (b),42 Stat. 858, 948, and as notedin McBoyle).
Interweavingof case facts withthe relevant lawand the rule: Accordingto the statementof facts,the
trial court convictedA-Rodof transporting“AR”hoverboardsacrossstate borders,fromNew Yorkto
NewJersey,withoutpayingthe relevantcommercial taxes.The NYState Courtof Appealsupheldhis
conviction.However,A-Rodappealedbyarguingthat“hovercraft”are notvehiclesasperstate and
federal laws.The “AR”hoverboard is one suchexample of a“hovercraft”.
Under the National MotorVehicle TheftAct,the legal definitionof “motorvehicle”is:“The term‘motor
vehicle’shallinclude anautomobile,automobile truck,automobilewagon,motorcycle,oranyother
self-propelledvehiclenotdesignedforrunningonrails;[…]”(quote takenfrompage 39 of McBoylev.
United States, certiorari tothe CircuitCourtof Appealsforthe 10th
Circuit,282 U.S. 835). Two elements

2. of the rule,“self-propelledvehicle”and“notdesignedtorunon rails”,originate fromthisstatutory
definition.Inthe presentcase,the “AR”hoverboardsfulfill bothof these elements.Inordertohover,
these hoverboardsneedengines.Also,the hoverboardsdonotrunon railsnor are theymeantto.
However,amotor vehicle isnotmerelylimitedtoself-propulsionandnon-rail-basedtravel.A third
elementandanotherlawalsoapply.
The third elementof the rule is“a convergence thatworksonland,water,or air”. Thiselementderives
fromthe Tariff Act.Accordingto McBoyle(p. 39), the definitionof the Tariff Actfor“motor vehicle”
extendstolandandair, althoughaseparate legal provisionexistsforwater(thisprovisionmaybe
relatedtothe Tariff Act).“AR” hoverboardsinparticularandhovercraftingeneral travel ona layerof air
(andstrictlyspeaking, in the air) but remainveryclose tothe ground(so muchso that one may,from a
distance,confuse a“hovercraftcar” witha traditional carwithwheels).Therefore,an“AR” hoverboard
alsofulfillsthisthirdelement.
Giventhese three fulfilledelements,the “AR”hoverboardsthatA-Rodhadtransportedcountas motor
vehicles.
Policypurpose(s):Technological,scientific,andengineeringadvancementscontributedtonew
developmentsintransportation.Motors,engines,fossil fuels,combustion,andlongstandinginventions
such as wheelshave giventermssuchas“motor vehicle”specificmeanings,connotations,andimages.
The evolutionof the term“motorvehicle”alongside the developmentof motorizedtransportationalso
influencedlawssuchasthe National MotorVehicle TheftActandthe Tariff Act. Takentogether,these
lawsholdthat a motor vehicle isaself-propelledunitof transportationwhichisnotdesignedtorunon
railsand travelsbylandand air.Thus, underthese twolawsalone,A-Rodwasguiltyof transporting
motor vehicles,specifically“AR”hoverboards, withoutpayingthe relevantcommercial taxes.
Furthermore,the NYState Courtof AppealsupheldA-Rod’sconviction.
However,A-Rodappealedbyarguingthat“hovercraft”are not vehiclesunderstate andfederal laws.
Here,imagesandconnotationsassociatedwiththe term“motorvehicle”become relevant,asdoes
McBoyle.
Accordingto McBoyle,a “motor vehicle”infactappliestoanyself-propelled,non-rail-based
transportationunitthattravelsvialand,water,or air.However,the popularconceptionof “motor
vehicle”isrestrictedtoland-basedtransportationsuchascars and trucks.On the basisof thisreference
to popularconceptions,the CircuitCourtof Appealsforthe TenthCircuitoverturnedthe convictionof a
personwhoknowinglytransporteda stolenairplaneacrossstate lines.Originallyandlegally,the
airplane countedasa “motor vehicle”.
A-Rod’sappeal echoesthe reasoningbehind McBoyle.However,boththe reasoningandthe appeal
dependuponhistoricallytime-boundconceptionsof motor vehiclesthatmaybecome outof date as
hovercrafttechnologybecomesmore mainstream.Thus,the term“motorvehicle”,forthe general
publicandthe law,cannot remainlimitedtonon-rail,ground-basedtransportationsuchascars and
trucks.Furthermore, groundvehiclescan“hydro-glide”overexcessivelywetsurfacesandairplanestaxi
and landon runways(andthustravel byair as well ason the ground).Finally,A-Rodisusingaloophole
viaa case decisionwhichreliesonpopularconceptionsassoundlegal basis.However,popular
conceptionsare notlaws.He barelyhasa case giventhe existinglawsandthe factthat the McBoyle
decisionisnotthe lastword.

3. A broaderdefinitionof “motorvehicle”isalsonecessaryforlaw inparticularandsocietyasa whole.