Country Living
Country Living, Country Skills
Country People - A Country Living Resource and Community
Message Board
Country Topics
Trading Post
Memory Lane
Country Skills
Country Cooking

The Kitchen

Photo Gallery
Vintage Photos
Special Collections

Country Humor
Country Sounds
Coloring Book
Interactive Story

Farm Tractors
Tractor Parts
Tractor Manuals

Classic Trucks
Antique Tractors
Modern Tractors
Site Map
Links Page
Contact Us

Country Discussion Topics
To add your comments to this topic, click on one of the 'Reply' links below.

Kangaroo Court
[Return to Topics]

Redneck    Posted 11-07-2003 at 06:45:37       [Reply]  [No Email]
I watched in traffic court here yesterday as a man pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving a unregistered vehicle.He had taken a car on a test drive from a car lot and was stopped by our finest.He told them what the deal was,but was cited anyway.The judge tried to mock him in court and told him he still had to show proof.He had to reschedule to come back with proof from the car lot.

That was when I wish I were rich and could pitch a good lawyer in the pot for the man.

Mudcat49    Posted 11-08-2003 at 04:17:24       [Reply]  [No Email]
Being in the car business let me try to clear this up. We take people for test drives all the time and do not take along a dealer tag, BUT we just drive around the block within a 1/2 mile of the dealership and a employee of the dealership MUST be with the driver. If we let a buyer take a car for a extended test drive it MUST have a dealer plate on it and we must fill out a loaner form for the person to have with them to show that they have premissiom from the dealership to drive the car with our dealer plate on it.

Juliana    Posted 11-07-2003 at 20:02:08       [Reply]  [No Email]
Well, here's my 2 cents worth. I keep my registration and insurance in my purse/wallet.This is so that if it is stolen and pulled over for some other reason, there are no papers that could show "implied consent" to drive the car. If nothing else, the police should run a check to see who the car IS registered to and help nab the bad guy for grand theft auto.

bulldinkie    Posted 11-07-2003 at 13:00:48       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Yes then you have OJ who killed 2 people and walked oh and dont forget the serial killer that (admitted )killing 48 people and they cant give him death penalty??????kangaroo is right..

Ana    Posted 11-07-2003 at 15:13:13       [Reply]  [No Email]
You are right---something went terribly wrong in both cases. With the serial killer, now they are saying they won't be able to give anyone the death penality because if this guy didn't get it, then WHO should? I think whoever goofed up, should be fired and their license to practice law taken away (permanently), but that's just me, and I don't get a vote.

Ana    Posted 11-07-2003 at 11:47:22       [Reply]  [No Email]
I think your problem was NOT paying for a lawyer. In our state you can supposedly appear before a judge and present your own case, but if you do so without paying some lawyer, chances are the judge won't even allow you to speak, let along present your case. He says you don't know proper form, so you loose, no matter what. Seen this happen more than once here. Is is right? NO, but who do you argue with?

earlschieb    Posted 11-07-2003 at 10:54:59       [Reply]  [No Email]
Sounds like the court system here in Randolph Co. Indiana to me, sounds like some of the things that they do all of the time.

mike    Posted 11-07-2003 at 09:04:22       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Read all the comments. Every state has different laws and the application of such. Don't know about Maryland or where this occured, but should not be able to occur in Wisconsin.

Since the fellow charged did NOT own the vehicle, he could NOT register it. The ticket belongs to the owner--in this case the auto dealer. The policeman who made the stop SHOULD have been responsible enough to sort this out at the time, and given the ticket to the dealer Indeed, that is WHY dealer plates exist.

It would be REASONABLE to assume or expect that a dealer would provide the necessary registration to make a test drive on dealer vehichles.

Moreover, the judge is incorrect in his comments. It is NOT the defendants responsiblilty to prove his innocence (that he did not own the car in this case). Quite the contrary. ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Therefore it is the responsiblity of the PROSECUTION to PROVE guilt. Not the other way around.

Therfore, IMHO what happened when the ticket was issued was improper, as well as what happened in court. To call it a kangaroo court is accurate and appropriate. I would be quite angry if I were the defendant.

Ron/PA    Posted 11-07-2003 at 09:44:22       [Reply]  [No Email]
Wow, I'm moving to Wisconson. Here in PA, a vehicle must have registration plates, to be legaly driven on the public highway. In PA, this ticket would go to the driver, If you have a car in your yard for sale no plates, and I come along and steal it, should you get the ticket for no plates? Every state I drive my truck in, I'm responsible for the condition of that equipment.
Doesn't matter that the company owns it, I'm driving it.
As much as I think this is a chickenshirt ticket, I also think that it's time to give some thought to our actions, and take some personal responsibility.

mike    Posted 11-07-2003 at 10:05:28       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Excellent point that you made there Ron.

However, if an unregistered car were stolen in Wisconsin, no ticket to the owner would be issued, because there was no intent to operate. In that case, the stealer would be charged with the approriate theft code. There would probably not be any ticket issued for non registration.

Not entirely sure about company vehicles. I have not seen that occur here, but am sure that it has. Were an employee be stopped with an expired or nonregistered company car, officer would likely issue a written warning to owner of vehicle. Such warning calls for registration within a certain number of days. Verification of registration has to be verified by law enforcement and matter then dropped.

If they do not comply within the time frame, then another citation is issued for failure to obey officer or something similar in addition to the nonregisration charge.

That is typically how such matters are handled here, however I am sure we have our numbskulls in the courts and law enforcement as well.

Now, if it is an unregistered/expired OUT OF STATE car, then you could expect a great deal more trouble. You might have the vehicle impounded at that point. At the very least, they would check extensively for warrants and the like.

Of course, this is only my opinion. I am not a law enforcement officer, nor judge or qualified individual.

I will say that for the most part, they try to avoid issuing citations to people that are likely to not hold up in court.

screaminghollow    Posted 11-07-2003 at 08:25:52       [Reply]  [No Email]
Problem is that it is illegal to operate a vehicle without proper registration. Don't matter that you borrowed the car, or test drove it. Doesn't even matter that you didn't know it wasn't registered. It is up to the person taking a vehicle onto the highways to make sure it works properly and has registration/insurance. The man was technically guilty. Particularly in Maryland District Court,the custon is that the guy should have went up to the judge and plead guilty with an explanation. And then made his spiel about the test drive and begged mercy. In Maryland he would probably have gotten off anyway.
Very few states' laws say you can not "knowingly" drive an unregistered vehicle on the road. The majority just make it illegal to drive an unregistered vehicle, knowledge or not.
Think about it, If the trespasser didn't see the signs, should he be let off for illegally entering your property? Or the old story, about "honest officer, I just found that package of crack cocain on the sidewalk and was going to turn it in." Everybody would "get off" under such a set of rules.
The Supreme Court is about to consider a case in which a guy is giving a ride home to two other teens. Cop stops them and charges all three with possession of the drugs he found under the seat. Driver says they must belong to one of the passengers, the passengers both claim it must belong to the driver. Does the state have to prove which person had it or can it charge all three and convict them. On one hand, a criminal may get off on the other two possible innocent folks get records.
Back in the Prohibition days, a minister was lent a car to drive, and as luck would have it, when he was pulled over, a few cases of demon rum were found in the trunk. The appellate courts all upheld his guilt of possession of illegal booze. If the government would have to prove that the person knowingly had the stuff, very few drug users/dealers/runners would be convicted. We have to balance the need to police society with the rights of innocent folks caught up in circumstances.
The long and short of it, is you better really trust the kids that your teenager rides with in the car.

Redneck    Posted 11-08-2003 at 11:48:41       [Reply]  [No Email]
Might be the law but still doesn't make it right or have any common sense to it.The lack of CS is present in most anything the government wets it's hands in.Could this be just inept individuals as seems or lack of a clean way to rid our country of these hairbrainers?

Gene SC    Posted 11-07-2003 at 14:49:01       [Reply]  [No Email]
I'm fairly new to this site and "I Love It"
'scuse me for sounding like a 'county hick'
but was wondreing about a couple of things.
lol & IMHO are 2 that comes to mind. some sites
have a index section that explains the "lingo"
but have not found one on this site, Thanks

some help    Posted 11-07-2003 at 15:03:58       [Reply]  [No Email]
LOL= laugh out loud

IMHO= in my humble opinion

deadcarp    Posted 11-07-2003 at 11:13:06       [Reply]  [No Email]
in mn, it's supposed to be simple: no matter whether it's passenger seat belts or insurance card or manslaughter or what, the minute you slide behind the wheel, you assumed the position of pilot and anything that happened is on your head. driver is god - period.

Tom A    Posted 11-07-2003 at 07:53:30       [Reply]  [No Email]
My experience sitting and watching traffic court has been the exact opposite--the judges seem to go out of their way to let folks off. Frankly that is my beef, because there are so many cruddy drivers on the road here they should yank a few licenses and make it better for everyone.

Example: My youngest kid's friend got a ticket for doing 95 in a 55 zone (my son said it was unusual for the kid to be going that slow!). The ticket got thrown out because the kid has a "good driving record." He is only 20 and has already wrecked more cars than I've owned.

So I'm gonna guess there's more to the story than you saw that day.


Tom A    Posted 11-07-2003 at 07:47:40       [Reply]  [No Email]
My experience sitting and watching traffic court has been the exact opposite--the judges seem to go out of their way to let folks off. Frankly that is my beef, because there are so many cruddy drivers on the road here they should yank a few licenses and make it better for everyone.

Example: My youngest kid's friend got a ticket for doing 95 in a 55 zone (my son said it was unusual for the kid to be going that slow!). The ticket got thrown out because the kid has a "good driving record." He is only 20 and has already wrecked more cars than I've owned.

So I'm gonna guess there's more to the story than you saw that day.


Redneck    Posted 11-08-2003 at 12:19:56       [Reply]  [No Email]
I agree about letting off bad drivers.No,there was not more to it.Very smart azzed judge,and a court room of dweeb cops.You would have to see some of the charges.One lady got a ticket for having her lights on brite in the day time.Another boy got a ticket for running a stop sign where there was not one.He pulled out of a driveway of a business when it was clear.The ticket was dropped but court cost was $99.50.A lawyer offered to beat the court cost for $500!

My son also had to pay $99.50 for a dropped ticket for lack of proof of insurance.True he did not have it in his car at the time he was stopped for something else,but the same police wrote up a wreck TWO days before where a truck side swipped my boy's vehicle.It was a hit and run.After driving to the police station,beating on the door and getting no responce,he called 911 from the parking lot and they relayed the message and the officer came out of the building.The desk is 10 feet from the door!My son went to the ER at the insistance of the cop,and when he returned home,he laid the insurance paper on his dresser and forgot to put in back in his car.The bill for an ambulance ride of 15 miles,a nurse putting hydrogen peroxide on a scratch,not seeing a doctor,and waiting for 3 hours in an empty ER was almost $6000!They would not recognise the fact that they had just written up the wreck and SAW the insurance paper.The fact is that they wanted the court cost.And they have not found the other vehicle,which a mirrow off it was found in the rear seat of my son's truck.Yep.I have all the confidence in the world in the legal system!

I am all for common sense driving and rules,but these idiots have a new city hall to pay for and by god they are doing it.

It is a SCAM for all involved except the citizen with the ticket or injuries!

sven    Posted 11-07-2003 at 07:11:14       [Reply]  [No Email]
There is something very wrong with our legal system if a thing like this can happen, but then again, shouldn't the car dealer have made sure that there was some sort of registration in the vehicle?

[Return to Topics]

[Home] [Search]

Copyright © 1999-2013
All Rights Reserved
A Country Living Resource and Community