Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : ROGER T. FOX GREGORY F. ZOELLER Denver , Indiana Attorney General of Indiana CHANDRA K. HEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ROGER T. FOX , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 52A02

- 1307

- IF

- 608 ) STATE OF INDIANA , ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff
. )

APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable J. David Grund , Judge Cause No. 52D01

- 1303

- IF

- 796

A pril 9, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAKER, Judge2

Appellant

- defendant Roger Fox asks this Court to determine that Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1 exempts vehicles registered as farm vehicles from citations under Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 2, which requires that occupants o f motor vehicles wear a properly

- fastened seatbelt at all times that the vehicle is in forward motion. More par ticularly, Fox argues that, as he was engaged in agricultural pursuits, he should not have been cited for failure to wear his seatbelt. As Fox’ s interpretation o f the statute contradicts the plain meaning of the text, w e decline to read Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1 in such a way. Additionally, we do not find that Fox’s rights were violated by Trooper Waldren’s absence from Fox’s bench trial. T herefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. FACTS On February 20, 2013, T roopers Charles Meyer and Waldren of the Indiana State Police were dri ving west on Business 31 in Miami County . The T roopers were driving behind Fox, who was driving a b lack Dodge truck with farm plates
. From their vantage point, the T roopers could see that Fox was not wearing his seatbelt. Fox attempted to put his seatbelt on quickly , but did not, and continued driving. Trooper Waldren, who was driving the police vehi cle, initiated a tr affic stop. Fox denied that he had tried to put his seatbelt on and told the police that he was exempt from wearing a seatbelt because his truck had registered farm plates. He also stated that he was leaving the C ircus City Grill, wher e he had stopped to eat lunch. Trooper Waldren issued Fox a citation for failing to wear a seatbelt under I ndiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 2 , which is a civil infraction
.3

Fox then became upset that he was issued a citation, grabbed the citation out of Troo per Waldren’s hand, and drove away without wearing a sea tbelt. Troopers Waldron and Meyer caught up to Fox and initiated a second traffic stop; the Troopers issued Fox a second citation for failing to wear a seatbelt. Fox then fastened his seatbelt and t old the Troopers that he would see them in court. On March 26, 2013, the trial court held an initial hearing, at which Fox denied the citation. Consequently, the trial court held a bench trial on May 7, 2013. At the trial, Officer Meyer testified to ev ents of February 20, 2013 , as noted above. Fox testified that although he had been pulling out of a rest stop when the Troopers issued his citations, he was on his way to purchase hay and was therefore engaged in agricultural pursuits. Fox argu ed that, b ecause his vehicle was registered as a farm vehicle and he was driving in connection with agricultural pursuits, he was exempt from the seatbelt requirement
. Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1(7) states that the seatbelt r equirement does not apply to
an indiv idual who is “an occupant of a farm truck being used on a farm in connection with agricultural pursuits that are usual and normal to the farming operation . . . .” At t he bench trial, Fox objected to Trooper Waldren’s absence. Fox asked that the matter be dismissed because Trooper Waldren “isn’t here for me to confront him that issued me the ticket.” Tr. p. 10. The trial court determined that Fox was not exempt from citation, explaining that

“ for that exemption to apply the farm truck has to be being used on a farm in connection with those pursuits,” and that “[t]he evidence presented was that you were at a restaurant4

somewhere on or near US 31 and turned o nto US 31 which is not a farm.” Id. at 16. The trial court held that, because Fox was not oper ating the vehicle on a farm, Fox was not exempt from the citation and ordered Fox to pay $25 in court costs. Fox now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION I. Seatbelt Exemption Fox asks us to interpret Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1(7) to provide an exemp tion for farming trucks when they are performing farming pursuits , whether or not those pursuits are being performed on a farm. Here, Fox raises questions concerning the interpretation and applicability of Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1(7). The interpret ation of a statute is a question of law reserved for the courts. Tooley v. State , 911 N.E.2d 721, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). When reviewing questions of law, our standard of review is de
novo. Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA Inc. , 952 N.E. 2d 320, 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1(7) exempts from the seatbelt requirement of Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 2 an individual who is an “occupant of a farm truck being used on a farm in connection with agricultural pursuits that are usual and normal to the farming operation, as set forth in IC 9

- 29

- 5

- 13(b)(2).” The trial court inte rpret ed the statute at the bench tria l and determined that “for that exemption to apply that farm truck has to be being used on a farm.” Tr. p. 16. Fox argues tha t this interpretation i s incorrect. He avers that Indiana’s traffic laws were written to apply to public roadways and that “there is no need for an exemption ‘ on5

a farm ’ where t raffic laws are not enforceable.” Appellant’s B r. p. 3. In other words, Fox maintains that the statute cannot simply refer to vehicles being used on a farm because, as he contends that traffic laws are unenforceable on farms, that interpretation would render the statute meaningless. However, we reject such an interpretation
. Fox ’s argument for interpretation fails because it contradicts the plain language of the statute and it rests on an incorrect assumption of the law. Traffic laws are not unenforceable on farms or other private property. See State v. Manuwal , 904 N.E.2d 657, 659 (Ind. 2009) ( determining that “regardless of where the defendant’s driving occurred, whether on public or private property, and even if on the defendant’s own property, the State is authorized to charge him with intoxicated driving offenses . . .” ). T herefore , w e agree with the trial court’s interpretation of the statute that the seatbelt exemption for farm trucks under Indiana Code section 9

- 19

- 10

- 1(7) applies only on a farm, and Fox’s argument fails. II. Witness Confrontation Fox also argues that t he matter should be dismissed due to the State’s failure to procur e Trooper Waldren ’s presence at the bench hearing on May 7, 2013 , maintaining that he had the right to confront the officer in court. However , Fox is mistaken. The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is available only in criminal cases. Addit ionally, Fox could have subpoenae d Trooper W aldren to testify, but did not. Consequently, this argument also fails.6

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. B ARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.