How Rude: The Judge STILL Takes Her License Away
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theduiguyplus
Get your Merch Here: the-dui-guys-store.creator-sp...
Need an attorney? Call 502-931-6788 or email Larry@LarryFormanLaw.com
OR
Schedule an appointment: http:/www.meetme.so/larryforman
Let's work together to solve your problem!
Connect With the DUI Guy+:
Website: www.FormanAndAssociatesLaw.com
X: x.com/TheDUIGuyPlus
TikTok: / theduiguyplus
Facebook: / theduiguyplus
Instagram: / theduiguyplus
LinkedIn: / theduiguyplus
Twitch: / theduiguyplus
Locals: theduiguyplus.locals.com/
CashApp: cash.app/LarryForman
#BuckleUp #ItsTheLaw #FreeKarenRead
00:00 - Coming UP!
00:11 - Verdict
4:25 - Watch NEXT!
![Megan Thee Stallion - Rattle [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qY6qwqVCsww/mqdefault.jpg)
If no crime was committed how can standing on your Rights be treated as a crime itself? Refusal to take any govt demanded test should not in any way infringe on one inherent Rights.
Her license should have been reinstated the moment she was found not guilty.
I agree .
Not only do I agree but think it should not have been suspended in the first place without the conviction because your supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (1) and be shouldn't be a requirement of the states or any government agency to require you to have a license in the first place because according to the supreme Court and the 14th amendment and the 8th amendment that allows us to freely travel keyword freely you can't do so freely or free if you have to have permission to do so. And you cannot licence or permit anything that's a right or privileged in this country . So technically the law itself is in violation of our constitutional freedoms and liberty's
@user-lv1wn3ff1u Absolutely, the states took that power on themselves without authorization from the people. The Courts ha e found dozens of times that there isna distict difference between driving and traveling, one is commercial and one is in the Private.
If you want to completely move outside the Jurisdiction of the "King" you must use Trust Law.
@@user-lv1wn3ff1u You are still free to travel by horse. Travel by motor vehicle is not a right.
If you required no license to drive then you would see fatalities on the roads skyrocket.
Also, if you can't prohibit someone from driving, then all DUI charges end in prison time because that's the only way to keep drunk drivers off the road.
And people who shouldn't drive again ever, like the elderly... How do you suppose you keep them off the road? You still have to ban them from travel somehow. If you can't control who gets to drive a car then your only option is to lock them up for the rest of their life.
Licenses are a necessary evil and the constitution did not foresee the advent of vehicles going 60 miles per hour. It was thinking about horse drawn carriages at best.
The officer refused to tell her the results of the field test, I would have refused in that case as well. I would not trust that officer to not falsify the results.
Police are the standing army the founders warned about
Yup
No joke, no joke at all
That's why they want our guns.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." This judge had the option to say nothing, but chose to remove all doubt. It's already 123 days, judge.
Lol just like your comment hey? You're aware by her refusal of the chemical test her license is automatically suspended by the dmv, regardless of the outcome of anything. You signed implied concent to chemical testing when suspected of dui. Refusal is automatic suspension.the judge gave her a sentence of 120 days out of the 365 she could have and had the right to, the 120 days being past or close to past would mean that the defendant could go to the dmv and show that she was found not guilty and the judge overseeing the case only found her liable for 120 days so please reinstate my license. However it's the dmv's decision and they easily could say so you refused to chemical testing but were found not guilty of dui? Okay well the punishment for not providing a chemical test upon request is 365 days of suspended license, come back when it's been that long. And there's nothing that person can do because it's the dmvs rules not the judges, judge can only suggest.
You're so smart so I'm sure you knew all of this already right?...
I suspect the Judge chose 120 days knowing it meant the licence was reinstated. Making no ruling likely would have ment the default 12 months would stand.
@@Mungo109 I suspect what happened is regardless of the situation the gov found her "guilty" of something and is a way to fight any civil rights violations. If you're found guilty the Supreme Court will always side on the gov side...if you're found guilty you will never get a civil rights violation. The gov never admits wrong doing, and that's because the judge has complete immunity and a person can't argue its a civil rights violation if the court decided you were guilty.
@@Mungo109 it’s more likely that 120 days is the statutory limit. So the judge just did the math. Yeah you’re probably good to go already.
@@jlo7770 She was found not guilty. Let me say it again for those who are a little slow... SHE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY! The judge is not doing her a favor. The judge is just being a Karen because she didn't agree with the jury verdict.
Shows there's no justice. Just retaliation for protecting herself.
"Not guilty"....but you are still going to be punished ? This is why I will never trust our 'Justice' system.
Justus system
Makes one really have to wonder about the profession of counsel...
Know your "Criminal Rule 12" and Evidence Rule 201 rights.
Such petty BS to suspended a persons license even after they have been found not guilty. Traffic court is ridiculous. Dui's have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with money for the state.
So even though they found her not guilty, they suspended the license because she refused to do the official breathalyzer. So not being convicted of the DUI, she is actually being punished for not providing evidence that could have incriminated her despite being found innocent of the charges. That’s tyranny for ya.
And even if you did "comply" and blew into the breathalyzer and it read 0.00, they then would want to take a blood sample to see if drugs were involved....🤷
Exactly!
Yes because you signed away that right. How do people not know this? You signed for your license and by doing so one of the rules of that is "under suspicion you must provide a sample blood/urine/breathe that you are not intoxicated if you refuse to provide a sample your license can be revoked even if you're found not guilty.. its not a mystery or a loophole to get out of a dui "just refuse and well go to jury trial, they have 0 physical evidence so you'll be innocent" it doesn't work that way and it 100% shouldn't. Advocating for drunk drives to get out of it with no penalties by just refusing everything is a bad standard.
That's new york junk and we all know why NY is such a garbage crime infest city right now. Use your heads
@@jlo7770if I inadvertently waived my rights, I hereby revoke said waiver
@@kepp81 then go turn in your driver's license lmfao. Don't work that way in this case you'll lose 99% of the time unless you have some super solid evidence that it was malicious prosecution, which good luck with that, I suggest getting a dash cam...
Ignorance of the law is no exception for breaking the law, or whatever that quote is judges like to tell people who say "I didn't know"
That judge needs medication.
Sounds like she’s already there
The judge needs to have all of her licenses taken
I think she’s on too much medication 😂
Why? Because you don't know you agreed to when you signed for your driver's license?
For following the law. Lol 😂
There really should be a way to appeal such a decision, to put it to a jury of her peers.
But she did the test once, they refused to give her the results. How can she be charged for that? If they want to do 100 breath tests, she must do 100? If so, that's stupid.
The process is the punishment.
Don't be deceived by people like the Judge who deliver their toxicity in a cheerful & affable manner.
If a Judge can suspend a license, she sure as hell should be able to reverse it as well.
Boy they were handing out justice that day.
Negative it's actually up to the dmv. In the dmv rules, you agreed to chemical testing when you're suspected of dui, when you signed for your driver's license. The judge may have given her 120 days, but I'm pretty sure the dmv can revoke it for up to a year upon their discretion. As soon as the police type in "refusal of chemical testing" your license is revoked, and it don't matter if the da doesn't try you, your license is suspended. You have to go to the dmv to get your license back the judge can only suggest punishment not issue or reinstate your license.
@@jlo7770 Maybe you didnt listen to the Judge when she said SHE ordered the suspension of the driver's license. I'm saying a judge should not rule to suspend a driver's license if the DMV has jurisdiction over suspensions....
@@toddmurphy523 maybe you don't understand that the circuit Court and the dmv are different entities. The dmv acts on what judges suggest usually. The judge can demand whatever they want ... however the dmv is separate from the court system. The dmv can do whatever they want because the court system doesn't rule what a separate gov entity does. They can only suggest... the judge can only suggest what they think, it's up to the dmv to decide what the punishment will be for violating their rules... sooooooo try again bud
@@toddmurphy523 no.
SCOTUS ruled we have the right to travel, it is set in precident.
These judges are corrupt. There needs to be a system to protect citizens from this abuse. Because what we have now is not working.
I guess the law says if you refuse to do a breathalyzer you're automatically suspended, even if you're stone cold sober. Well, she refused. Maybe the law needs changed?
Yes and she already had taken one breathalyzer and then a second breathalyzer at the scene
@@kathyweagley1273 Was one of the ones she took the evidentiary breathalyzer? I wasn't following this case. If she refused the evidentiary breathalyzer, which it sounds like she did when the judge said "now we have to deal with the refusal", then this makes sense.
@@Isaac_132 It doesn't really make sense, though. She took a field breath test and they wouldn't tell her the results (because she passed it, right?). So then after the FSTs and the arrest and all of that, now they wanna give her another one, where they still aren't going to tell her the results? That's just absurd... So on paper maybe you're right, the refusal is a bad idea, but in reality, she already knew they were liars because of what just happened on the exact same issue, so of course she wasn't going to trust them with anything.
@dper1112 PBT results are not admissible in court. State requires officers to offer an evidenciary test, i.e., breath sample on a state machine, blood, or urine. Even if the PBT showed .000 and the officer had other indicators to believe the subject may be impaired by another means he still has enough to request a separate sample of urine or blood. Consenting to the test is a requirement of your driving privilege that you agreed to when you applied for a drivers license. Refusing the test has ramifications, usually stricter punishments than if you consented and failed. You could be stone cold sober, but if the officer had RAS to request a sample and you refuse the stste will revoke your driving privilege.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is responsible for these bullshite laws, IMHO.
I don't recall it as a refusal. The officer offered the intoxilizer test if she wanted to. She turned down a voluntary offer, not an order.
She said Negative, because she was sick of being treated like $#|t. I don't blame her one bit, since this officer who charged her is a POS.
Judges think they are Gods.
The legislators gave them this power. Anything to keep it out of regular citizen's hands through the jury. The govt will get their piece no matter what
The bad ones do
I think it was automatic, not the judge's fault....
@@normiepuppet8306you agreed to chemical testing when you signed for your driver's license. When you refuse to so that it's automatic revoked license, you agreed to it everyone did, try to be mildly educated before posting some crap you conjured together from a few reddit posts, it makes you look shockingly ignorant
@@jlo7770 The indoctrination has been completed in you. You must be very proud.
This is totally fair.......NOT
Driving is not a privilege. You take a test and prove competency so it is earned. As a free person we should have the right to travel in any way we want to.
@TheDUIGuy+, 120 days from Sept 6th would be Jan 4th... So by the time the verdict was rendered, she would have been cleared from the temp suspension.
That's kind of what I was thinking...🤔
That's kinda what she said... its also up to the dmv to reinstate her license which they still might not for a full 365 days which is something you agreed to when you got your license. A refusal runs the risk of a 365 day suspended license. Pretty sure that's all 50 states. Maybe not Cali and New York, but let's face it those states are pretty garbage about holding people accountable for their crimes
I am confused. If she was found not guilty of all charges, why was her license still suspended?
She was found guilty of the charges that the jury was asked about. But there was also the charge, presumably uncontested and not decided by the jury, that she refused a test that she wasn't allowed to refuse regardless of whether she was drunk or not.
@@johaquila are you stupid or drunk
Yes she refused the Third breathalyzer
Ah ha, thx! @@kathyweagley1273
@@kathyweagley1273 That makes sense. It's an administrative suspension rather than a guilty verdict suspension. I would have thought it would have been lifted after trial
Same thing happened to my husband. He got found not guilty of a d.u I. Still had to pay $526 to the state to reinstate his license.
Did you hear about Carolia Fort Worth? Cops slammed her to the ground knocking her out.
If your found not guilty how can they take a license?
because people never pay attention to the tyrannical laws their state legislators are passing until they are the ones falsely accused
Because you agreed to that when you signed for your license. It's shocking so many people don't know this. The rule states "you will be required to provide a sample if there's suspicion of dui/dwi, if you refuse to provide a sample urine/blood/breathe you are subject to loss of license for up to 365 days regardless if you're found not guilty in a court".. a refusal is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the dmv and they will revoke your license, as far as I know it's up to the dmv and they can take what the judge says 120 day suspension, or they could say no you broke our rules 365 day suspension.
One's 5A right is violated by that "implied consent state code". Statism has a stranglehold on the institutionalized and indoctrinated.
why can't she take the judgement outcome to the DMV/Government offices to clear the ban?
Because you agreed to that when you signed for your license. It's shocking so many people don't know this. The rule states "you will be required to provide a sample if there's suspicion of dui/dwi, if you refuse to provide a sample urine/blood/breathe you are subject to loss of license for up to 365 days regardless if you're found not guilty in a court".. a refusal is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the dmv and they will revoke your license, as far as I know it's up to the dmv and they can take what the judge says 120 day suspension, or they could say no you broke our rules 365 day suspension.
@@jlo7770 - one problem, with your explanation.... She got her license in another state and didn't agree to that.
So she didn't agree to that when she signed for her license.
--
Now ... that's _THE LAW_ which is different..
But I'm not saying that she doesn't need to follow it - I'm saying that she should be able to take the judgement, where she was found not guilty, by a jury, and have the rest 120 days of the term excused. Where would that be a problem? Otherwise the police could have a field day, just bringing everyone in under a possibility of having any alcohol in their system... and anyone who refuses to take the breath test gets an instant 120 day suspension. Doesn't matter if they just got up after sleeping for 6 days... doesn't matter if they would have blown a 5.0.
"Your headlight is out"
"I have a replacement in the back of the car, and I'm replacing it tomorrow."
"That's too bad - it's not in the socket. I'm writing you a ticket that'll need you to replace it in the next 24 hours or pay a $200 fine. You can see the judge on Monday morning if you wish to fight it."
Well he comes into court, shows the receipt for 45 minutes before the ticket that he had bought a new lamp, and a picture of the car's lights lit up with the new light timestamped the next day... and the judge.... fines him the $200? No... because he replaced it. Dismisses the ticket.
Well I'm saying the same here... She should not have to be caught with the imposition with the remainder of the duration since she was found "not guilty" of DUI.
What if this case were heard earlier, around the 90 day mark? Or the 60? Or the 30?
What if it were magically 10 days in? Should she still be facing 110 more days with a suspended license for something she was found not guilty of?
What if the officer were found to have been bringing in everyone he didn't like that night? Should any of them have to face that full term because they thought it ludicrous that they were being forced to take a test at all?
Lot of what-ifs, but - again - why can't she take that verdict to have the rest of the term cleared and her license unsuspended / restored?
It was already 124 days
She's found not guilty on all charges and yet her license is still suspended WTF
I would keep an active on the department of transportation. They're not exactly people friendly, don't forget they're government employees
Because you agreed to that when you signed for your license. It's shocking so many people don't know this. The rule states "you will be required to provide a sample if there's suspicion of dui/dwi, if you refuse to provide a sample urine/blood/breathe you are subject to loss of license for up to 365 days regardless if you're found not guilty in a court".. a refusal is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the dmv and they will revoke your license, as far as I know it's up to the dmv and they can take what the judge says 120 day suspension, or they could say no you broke our rules 365 day suspension.
I've wondered for decades why they state can get away with this. How is it constitutional to be presumed guilty of you do not provide evidence against yourself. Isn't it a 5th amendment problem or something? I'm still baffled how these penalties are still allowed.
They suspended 2 days after arrest and refusal? That's very fast.
Makes no sense if she was found not guilty. What is the judge on? If found not guilty there should be a court order to reflect reinstatement of her license. The judge is not happy with the not guilty verdict.
Why do we expected to have a license if we do not engage in the privilege? The public roads are dedicated and disposed for public travel...why do I need a privilege license if I am not hauling goods or people for hire?
Mixed in there was the statement by the judge that her license was suspended in Kentucky for refusing a "test". Was that for blood, urine, or the Intoxylizer? I assume Kentucky is an _" Implied Consent"_ state.
pretty much all states are now
Yes it is. It's shocking how many people don't know that this is a thing. You are given dui penalties for a refusal as far as I know, in every state.
What bs no crime but still a punishment
people need to start paying attention to all the crap that is actually beimg passed in state legislation instead of worrying about what team to rah-rah over
@@normiepuppet8306 so true
Punished for being accosted by a cop.
That’s the going trend these days!
Unhinged AND tyrannical is what I think best describes this judge
Why does the video look like it was filmed in a smoke filled room in the 1960s?
That's the judge's preferred ambiance. She loves to overact when she is not reasonable. The ambiance is perfect for that.
Omg what a pain.
,120 days is 4 months.9/6- 1/7 would have been 120 days.
Thats what she should have done. The law says if you dont do a breath test you get suspended.
I'm assuming that this is based on what is called an "implied consent" ruling. It's an administrative judgment based on the fact that as part of getting a driver's license, a person must give consent to be tested for BAC when arrested. However, the police abuse this, as we see in this case. They give the PBT and then claim that it is much higher than what it actually says and hide the results from the driver in order to "elicit a response" from the driver. Then they use that "response" to arrest the driver. This driver saw through the scam and refused to do any further tests, thus resulting in an "implied consent" violation. Larry should have argued this in front of the judge (if it's allowable in KY) as the reason for the breath test refusal at the station.
If u are not conducting bisnes u dont knead a licence 4. Forth amendment
Kangaroo court?
Wow, that judge is even more obnoxious and shrill than Judge Judy.
Lesson here is if you're accused of a DUI:
1. Immediate invoke your rights: "Officer, with respect, from this point on I will be exercising my rights and will not be answering any questioning without a lawyer present."
2. Say _nothing_ more _except_ "Am I free to go?"
3. Almost all states have "implied consent" laws where refusal to do a breathalyzer at the police station, while your right, will result in a suspension of your license regardless of anything that happens later. Personally, I would say, "On the record although it is might right to refuse, I am performing this test under duress" and do the test.
4. Hire a good lawyer, beat the charge
5. Hire another good lawyer and sue the officer and department.
So a license suspendee in one state should not prevent you from obtaining one in another. We are able to obtain fishing license as well as other privilege licenses in multiple jurisdictions. Why not the "driving" privilege?
What the heck are you thanking the Judge for at the end Larry?
If there was No Crime, then shouldn't the Qccessory Spin shments have been quiet aquashed, or whatever the Legal Terminology is?
Because she could have held it for 365 days. And would have been well within the regulations for a refusal.
Judge did not like the jury verdict. They better hope they are not in HER court under any charges.
Wonder why pesky citizens think the system is broken.....
No. It's a very clear rule. If you refuse a test you can have your license suspended regardless if you're found guilty or not. Everyone would just refuse everything and go to jury trial and be found innocent because no evidence if this was the case. You're read this Claus while you're at jail, you have to sign the paper, you are made abundantly clear that if you refuse the test the dmv can revoke your license regardless of what the court decides.
What a horrid person. Judge! I have to advise you that you are guilty... guilty of overacting!!!
This judge knows she is acting in a horrid manner.
ok as has been said. refusing the breathalyzer and or blood test in many states is an automatic suspension or your license. However that is still better than a DUI conviction.
rolls eyes - judges are a joke
That law is unconstitutional but violates our rights
Lady cops and judges. Jeez
What if you refuse but like in this case, your phone not guilty. Do they still take it?
Yes if you refuse it's up to the court/dmv to revoke your license. As soon as the paperwork goes into the system that you refused your license is revoked through the dmv, they then make the decision when to give you your license back, in most places its up to 365 days automatically
@@jlo7770 seems like if you refuse and then you turn out to be not guilty, it should all be finished with no consequences
@@Eeohippus so... what happens when people drive around drunk blatantly and just refuse every test? They hire a lawyer it goes to a jury the sees that the state has 0 evidence that they were drunk supposedly because theres no physical evidence to PROOVE that they were drunk. That's the issue, and that's why that rule is there. So that refusal couldn't be used as a loophole to getting out of a dui. You refuse to implied concent, (which you signed off agreeing to do when you got your license) you lose your license, you get dui penalties regardless of a not guilty charge. I 100% agree that's how it should be.. there shouldn't be a loophole for people to get blacked out drunk and slam into some poor mf'er and killing them. The whole premise is if you're innocent of what you've been accused of, you do the chemical test prove you're sober and magically you're not charged, because no da is going to get a conviction with you blowing 000s clean pee or clean blood.
Kinda think this might be the case where the chick got pulled over, rolled down her window dumped a cup full of vomit out the window then talked to the cop for a while, he pulled her out did some tests she claimed innocence she blew 2x into the road side breathalyzer (which isn't credible evidence) then got arrested, went to the jail and refused to blow in the certified breathalyzer. There was no evidence she was drunk other than the roadside breathalyzer which is junk science she refused the test at the station and they had no physical evidence other than she failed 2 tests that are completely easy to debunk. I hate to say it but who tf gets pulled over and dumps out a cup full of vomit on the ground in front of their door then steps in it when they get out? I'm an alcoholic bro and I know for a fact a normal human ain't doing that... thats why they have a claus in there for loopholes. If the judge thought Larry was a pos or sided with the da, the judge could and would be within their right to say "cool you don't get a dui on your record but I'm still suggesting the 365 day suspension for refusal to perform a chemical test"
Great job DUI guy..
Can she get an international drivers license?
Why would she? She had a 120 day suspension that was already up by the time she was found not guilty.... Jesus people are shockingly ignorant over this video.
i mean, this is less so because of the judge choosing to keep her license suspended, more so the judge informing her that, regardless of the verdict, she still had to serve the 120 days of suspension (which she had by that point, but the judge didn't want to calculate the exact date the 120 days would have been served since Larry can do that for the defendant), and the rest was just her explaining that there's gonna be some hassle from it being an out of state license getting suspended, because it's always a pain in the ass for states to communicate with each other.
so this is less the judge's fault, and more so an issue of the law itself, as the law says she gets a suspended license for refusing the breathalyzer at the police station (as the state of Kentucky doesn't really care about the roadside one for whatever reason?) regardless of the verdict. it's likely she'd still have a suspended license even if she had been found completely innocent on day 2 of the suspension. the law for the suspended license doesn't care if you're drunk or not, it only cares if you said no to the breathalyzer test.
It's blood breathe urine to be correct. It's implied concent that everyone who has a license agreed to before being issued a license. I'm going to go out on a limb and say 99% of people who refuse know they're screwed and going to get a dui penalties either way so it's better to take the revoked license than have a guilty of dui on your record.
The law/rule is good it should be there, I hate cops I hate court system but I'm not here to advocate for drunk driving, do whatever you want so long as you're not doing something that can hurt other people, and in a lot of cases drunk driving is typically hazardous to anyone in the area. This video is pretty disappointing on Larry's part.
She is mad because she didn't get all that guilty bond money for her retirement fund!
Larry, please explain this? Is this a local or state thing? Seems so wrong 😢
Every state has a form of this. People dont pay attention to the thousands of laws passed every year because they never think it will effect them
Because you agreed to that when you signed for your license. It's shocking so many people don't know this. The rule states "you will be required to provide a sample if there's suspicion of dui/dwi, if you refuse to provide a sample urine/blood/breathe you are subject to loss of license for up to 365 days regardless if you're found not guilty in a court".. a refusal is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the dmv and they will revoke your license, as far as I know it's up to the dmv and they can take what the judge says 120 day suspension, or they could say no you broke our rules 365 day suspension.
This isn't a new law it's been there since duis started getting enforced in the 80s? Cracking down on open containers and what not. It isn't a new law lol
You are correct except the standards"probable cause". Virtually every state has its own form of it. Judge is also correct that the driver will have to clear the refusal with Ohio. States generally apply full faith and credit to sister state actions. So she's got to satisfy two states' requirements. This isn't anything overwnich the judge has any contol.
@@cameronlawoffices898 exactly.. I'm mind blown Larry and these ill-informed people think this is some major gov over reach. You agreed to it, isn't the courts fault you were too lazy to read the requirements for your license.. I read every comment and replied to a lot, I can't believe the amount of ignorant crap I read..
Literally if the way to get out of dui's is to refuse everything and go to jury trial EVERYONE that gets a dui would do it and just spend a little money. The rules are there to keep people from refusing and getting away with no consequences. Are there crooked cops pushing for bs dui's? Absolutely. But if you're not dui then why refuse? You're read the rule and have to sign the paper if you refuse to sign it it's documented as a refusal as well...theres not many da's who are going to attempt to charge you with dui when you did their tests and it showed you weren't dui. Theres a ton of issues with the us court system and police but this isn't one of them, I honestly think there should be harsher penalties for dui's.
Not a judge? Just a social queen? What’s going on?
tyrannical color of law woman acting as a judge!
Here in Colorado, the DMV has their own rules completely separate from the court. DUI here is a criminal charge, and then the DMV yanks your license according to their own rules.
A refusal here is a 1 year suspension.
That's everywhere dude. Every state I've lived in has had that rule. I know Kentucky is the same because I've heard his cases and they all have the person refusing to do test and the punishment could be 1 year suspension regardless if found guilty.
Sounds wildly unconstitutional and a violation of due process
Florida has the same
@@kepp81 sounds wildly like something you agreed to when you signed for your driver's license. A refusal is deemed as guilty by the dmv and they can hold your license for a year regardless if you're found not guilty. I suggest you look into your states implied concent laws if you have a habit of being dwi/dui.
Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, north dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Texas, every state has these "rules" its not unconstitutional because no where in the constitution is there a "right to drive", driving is a privilege not a right. I know there's some 62iq folks out there that say you can claim to be sovereign and it doesn't apply but the country just laugh at you when you represent yourself because no lawyer will touch that. Laws are crystal clear, driving is a privilege not a right. Theres a difference
@@jlo7770 Statist says what? I don't talk to Statists btw, so this is my last response. I find the boot in their mouths to be distracting and embarrassing. Modern Americans with your mentality would 1000% have supported the Crown in 1776 bc the Crown was acting "lawfully"
When you going to do another video on for public safety? Interested in what’s going on with his situation.
I’m counting 123 days so Idk 🤷♂️
I'm going to have to throw in an Uncivil Law, "Wait, what?" Why should the 'found not guilty' defendant have to sort out her licences? WTAF! Surely it's the Judge's responsibility to reverse any action taken by OHIO and Kentucky? C'mon Larry, did you leave it there or are we going to get a wee surprise vid?
Because you agreed to that when you signed for your license. It's shocking so many people don't know this. The rule states "you will be required to provide a sample if there's suspicion of dui/dwi, if you refuse to provide a sample urine/blood/breathe you are subject to loss of license for up to 365 days regardless if you're found not guilty in a court".. a refusal is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the dmv and they will revoke your license, as far as I know it's up to the dmv and they can take what the judge says 120 day suspension, or they could say no you broke our rules 365 day suspension.
So let's be fair here. The license was suspended PRE-TRIAL from Sep 6th, 2018. By the time the trial was completed, and she was found Not Guilty it was January 19, 2019. The 120 days was long done, so with the court paperwork she can visit the DMV and get this cleared quickly. No the judge was not acting improperly. Just a timing issue.
Typical leftest judge
That law she was following was written and passed by Republicans, Karen.
@@daddyiloso Republicans passed a version of this rule in every state? Jesus are you forgetting that the democrats were the ones cracking down on this in the 90s? Or are you one of those democrats that claims the parties magically flipped sometime to fit your narrative, maybe it was the 60s, maybe after the 90s, but all the bad racist stuff that was Republicans cuz we say so despite Jim Crowe being a Democrat thing? Super predators was the Democrat thing as well. Is the school system really this terrible in the us?
Im usually all for the rights of citizens but driving is not a right it’s a privilege and they make it very clear when they give you a license, that if you refuse to comply with certain things, like a breathalyzer, you are agreeing to have your license suspended. I thought that was a pretty common knowledge thing and kind of surprised to see an attorney think that it’s wrong? I even know that if I were to refuse a breathalyzer that my license would be suspended so I’m kind of surprised at how many people think that it’s wrong, especially an attorney. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s stupid and shouldn’t be a rule, but it is one and sometimes have to follow rules that are completely asinine!
People here fail to realize that being licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways is a privilege, not a right. If you want to exercise your Right to Travel without dealing with all of that, there are other modes of transportation. Your vehicle may be your personal property, but the public roads are not. Beyond that, if you need the law explained to you in further detail, discuss it with a lawyer like The DUI Guy.
Let me get this straight she was found not guilty on all charges it was bullshit that’s right that stuff that stinks in the barnyard RUclips. So now she’s without a drivers license and probably going to be out thousands of dollars were going back-and-forth between different states to try and get a drivers license. The judge needs to resend her illegal suspension. Typical people in power don’t take responsibility for their illegal or unconstitutional actions.
Valley girl judge. God help us.
What is the point?
Explain this
TY judge?
police state
What a c you next Tuesday
The Fascist States of America hard at work.
How is this fascist? You agreed to the penalties of refusing a test when you signed for your driver's license
@jlo7770 First, it is an agreement under duress at best. Second, it is constitutionally offensive. A manipulation that bypasses the idea of due process. Do "this," and no matter what the circumstances, you're guilty and punished. That is the machination of despots.
If she is not a resident of Kentucky, then the STATE OF KENTUCKY has not jurisdiction over her. Or Ohio. Plus to be a resident of the STATE you must be employed by the STATE. 18 U s code 911,912.
Most states reciprocate pertaining to dmv related issues.
@@jlo7770 But to get a driver license you must be a hired agent, employee or officer with authority of the STATE.
As being one of those three makes you a resident of the STATE CORPORATION to do business with them. As a Sheriff told me "we work for them". After I said "I do not work for you.". He then said "yes you do.".
@@rebelstudio2720 that sovereign citizenship garbage gets laughed out of 99% of courts in the us. If you went to the dmv and obtained a driver's license you are subject to the rules and regulations of the dmv. If you have a license which I'm going to assume you don't, you could read the back of it and on that it shows the requirements of your license, none of that has anything to do with, being a hired agent, employee of officer with authority of the state or whatever garbage you're trying to push lol
@@rebelstudio2720 no one cares about your made up story about what a made up sheriff told you bra
I surrendered my license three times in three different states over the years. I acquired licenses for commercial reasons, when that reason had expired, I would surrender them at the DMV.
I currently travel without one. I don't care what the law says, it makes me feel like a patriot in a time of madness. I think it's important to note that my "privileges" weren't taken, I surrendered clean licenses.
Cool.
But the deals this out of state license? The judge is still following DMV.rules & regulations ,such time and relication one must register in the time for another state .this time closing in a few days it fair she tells her the report was turned in and state pulled / suspended for that prior state.simply just got a few day grace period to go with credit since the trial period! Added on to get registered to have a driver's license in the previous state inwhich she previous lives in now.nothing more.this is to keep people from holding two drivers license in each state,from situation like this acurès again. Thats all rules for all not some helps keep records straight.👍🏻
The prosecution still pushed it forward for no reason. Blame them, not the judge or defense. I think at that point DUI guy was not going to fight it, especially since Defendant had 4 or so days left.
No its very clear that if you refuse it's automatic revoked license regardless if you're found guilty or not
@@jlo7770 LOL AFTER 2 BREATHLYZERS WERE ALREADY DONE. At some point we need our rights back.
@@Goomlahexpress road side breathalyzer aren't accurate. Even Larry would argue that he did argue that, most road side breathalyzer are not considered, and shouldn't be considered accurate, there's a lot of things that go into a breathe test that can be admissible in court, again as there should be. It's to make sure it's accurate. By signing for your license you agreed to breathe,blood, and urine testing, you can be required to take all 3.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. It's been that way since cars came about. If you want to change laws then vote for people who will change your state laws, or run for offices. Driving licenses have been very clearly defined. It is a privilege, not a right. There is no constitutional right to Driving... if you don't agree with it don't get a license and don't drive, or drive without one I personally don't care. The rules are there for a reason, ignorance of the laws is no excuse, unless you're a cop.
They literally read you a paper and tell you if you refuse this test your license will be revoked. You have to sign it if you refuse to sign it, the officer will sign and note that you refused to sign it as well as refused to take the test. The onus is on the individual to know what tests are certified and which ones aren't. You don't have to take a road side sobriety test, no punishment for that, you dont have to take the road side breathe test, no punishment for that, but you do have to take the test that is CERTIFIED and in a controlled environment.
Know your rights before you start crying about how they're being stepped on, in regards to Driving, you don't have a right to that it isn't God given so you have to play by their rules. Don't like it? Vote for someone who will make a change. But I feel that this will be highly unpopular because the vast majority of people don't like drunk drivers. If the chick had blown at the station 000s and they still charged her 100% corrupt da/judge/ cops file civil rights law suit. She refused the test when it mattered. Infact if you think the police got it wrong you can request to go to a hospital and pay to have all the test done that you want to prove their shit is broke.
Last time: it's not a right it's a privilege.
Guilty till proven innocent, they suspended her license when she was technically still innocent and none of them care, it’s not their problem. I think you did a great job Mr Foreman, I still don’t think it’s fair though
Because it's very clear in the rules/regulations when you signed for your license, if you refuse to take a "chemical" test your license will be revoked for upto 365 days regardless if you're found not guilty. Dui punishments for refusal as it rightfully should be. It isn't a ticket out of a dui if you're not found guilty by a jury trial. You refuse you lose your license on the spot, paperwork goes to da then it goes to dmv license revoked
Dude, by my read of the judge, she was very disappointed in the jury 😢 finding her not guilty. i wasn't surprised at the verdict. Your client could have been completely sloshed with the video and the quiet voice and lost little girl in a new city and alone asshole cop stupid test and breath test with all 0000 and no numbers with body cam you copy the results on the bodycam you have your own record of how drunk she wasn't you knew right away she was very close to 0.00
He was hopeful that the breath test at the station would have a better read
The way the cop acted on camera sunk him with soft spoken woman
the drunk woman wasn't there . But the judge had her guilty immediately which i thought was odd with this judge
How drunk were you when you wrote this?
Dude i like your content but this is pretty pathetic if youre scrapping the bottom of the barrel like this. You of all people know a refusal is an automatic revoked license regardless if youre found guilty or not. If this was a loophole everyone would refuse tests and get off on jury trial cuz theres 0 physical evidence, thats why the laws are black and white when you signed for your drivers license, if you refuse its up to the dmv/court to revoke your license regardless of a conviction or not.
Nothing against you larry but a 4 min clip to try to make it look like judges are bad for upholding what you signed off on on your license is kinda disingenuous.
What the fuck?
Texas plays this game as they reserve the right as the state to take your livence away if you do not use the breathalyzer if you are pulled over. Texas can suck it i won't play thier game.
That's every state as far as I know bud. You signed for your driver's license by doing that you agreed to doing tests, and that's not just breathe, it's breathe, blood, urine a refusal is automatic suspension of license regardless of being found not guilty.
If it was this easy to get out of a dui everyone would refuse the tests and push for a jury trial because theres no physical evidence you were intoxicated. Boom drunk driving? Just refuse and get a lawyer you'll be okay. That's why it's wrote into the rules that YOU agreed to, the penalty being suspended license. You get dui consequences for refusing, as you should imo. Hate cops equally as much as I hate drunk drivers.