"Unlicensed driver"

[HFree45]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

My son is 18 years old. A couple of weekends ago he was out with some friends. One friend picked him up in his car- there were already two other passengers in the car, so my son got on the back seat.

The car was pulled over for loud exhaust. As it turns out, the driver of the car did not have a driver's license. My son was the only person in the car with a valid license. The officer wrote my son a ticket for Unlicensed Driver, which required a court appearance. My son went to court yesterday (he lives in Ohio and I live in Michigan so I was unable to be in court with him). The judge read the charge against him and said that he knowingly allowed an unlicensed driver to drive his vehicle. My son tried to tell the judge that it was not his car, but she wouldn't allow him to talk - all she wanted was for him to say "guilty" or "not guilty"...so my son asked for time to consult with an attorney.

After my son told me about what had happened in court, I thought surely either he had misunderstood the judge, or that there was more to the story that he wasn't telling me. So I went on the courts website and did a records search. The only charge against him says "unlicensed driver" and when I looked at the Case Information it says that proof of insurance was shown and it has the license plate number of the car that was pulled over...and it's not even close to my son's license plate number on his car.

Also, my son said he was not aware that his friend didn't have a license.

My thought is to have him get a printout from the BMV showing the car that is registered to him and the plate number. Even on the ticket the officer gave him it says the car is a maroon Grand Prix...my son drives a black Mustang.

We can't afford an attorney...what can we do to get him out of this mess?

 

[Zigner]

Did he plead guilty or not guilty?

 

[HFree45]

Neither. He asked for a week to consult with an attorney. He goes back to court next Wednesday and will plead not guilty. I would assume at that point the judge will set a trial date.

I just don't understand how they can charge him with anything to begin with. He was a passenger in the back seat of a car that he believed was being driven by a licensed driver.

 

[adjusterjack]

Neither. He asked for a week to consult with an attorney. He goes back to court next Wednesday and will plead not guilty. I would assume at that point the judge will set a trial date.

I just don't understand how they can charge him with anything to begin with. He was a passenger in the back seat of a car that he believed was being driven by a licensed driver.

The "how" should be obvious from the fact that it happened.

You can confirm this by looking at his citation but I'm guessing he was cited for:

"Ohio Rev Code § 4507.02 (2013) (A) (1) No person shall permit the operation of a motor vehicle upon any public or private property used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel or parking knowing the operator does not have a valid driver's license..."

http://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2013/title-45/chapter-4507/section-4507.02/

Note my emphasis on the word "knowing."

The are many case decisions involving that statute but, so far, they seem to involve the driver being cited. I don't have time to read them so I'll leave that up to you to go through them and see if any involve a passenger being cited.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=4507.02&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=4%2C36

The reason the judge wouldn't let your son talk is because, at an arraignment, all you do is plead guilty or not guilty, you don't state your case.

I suggest that your son go back and plead not guilty. He'll get set for a trial where the state will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he "knew" that the driver didn't have a license.

If you can't afford a lawyer, try local legal aid, or at least pay a couple of hundred for a consult so your son can learn how to handle himself in court.

 

[latigo]

Need you be reminded that we have distinctly been made aware of the nature of the pending charges? OR that that is not the issue?

What is in issue is whether or not - under the circumstances presented - the poster's son can be found to be a "person" within the context and meaning of the statute.

NOW if you can come up with some "legal research" confirming that the word "person" as it appears in that statute has been defined by the Ohio courts as including anyone OTHER than the owner of the subject vehicle, or one in charge of and/or exercising the immediate control thereof, then fine.

Otherwise, like your above, your efforts are for naught.

 

[davew128]

Need you be reminded that we have distinctly been made aware of the nature of the pending charges? OR that that is not the issue?

What is in issue is whether or not - under the circumstances presented - the poster's son can be found to be a "person" within the context and meaning of the statute.

NOW if you can come up with some "legal research" confirming that the word "person" as it appears in that statute has been defined by the Ohio courts as including anyone OTHER than the owner of the subject vehicle, or one in charge of and/or exercising the immediate control thereof, then fine.

Otherwise, like your above, your efforts are for naught.

Much like your posts. By the way, do your own research before you bitch at someone else's.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Need you be reminded that we have distinctly been made aware of the nature of the pending charges? OR that that is not the issue?

What is in issue is whether or not - under the circumstances presented - the poster's son can be found to be a "person" within the context and meaning of the statute.

NOW if you can come up with some "legal research" confirming that the word "person" as it appears in that statute has been defined by the Ohio courts as including anyone OTHER than the owner of the subject vehicle, or one in charge of and/or exercising the immediate control thereof, then fine.

Otherwise, like your above, your efforts are for naught.

Must we muddy the waters with incomprehensible legalese without including any words that might actually help OP?

Long story short, HFree, the reason your son was not permitted to explain himself to the judge was because that was not the time that explaining is allowed. All the judge needed to hear was whether you son was pleading guilty or not guilty.

Your son's inability to decide whether or not he was going to plead guilty, and the fact that he is not a minor would indicate that he has the following choices:
(1) Hire an attorney, or
(2) Learn how to represent himself in court really fast. He's off to slow start, but at least he understood enough at his first appearance to understand that he was over his head.

I suspect there is more to the story. You're in Michigan, he's in Ohio, and clearly he doesn't know how to choose his friends wisely yet. Were you to show up at a later court appearance, you might hear the other side of the story.

 

[FlyingRon]

Did you say ute?

 

[Ohiogal]

How old were the other friends?

 

[HFree45]

My son and one passenger are 18, one is 16, and the driver is 17.

 

[Ohiogal]

My son and one passenger are 18, one is 16, and the driver is 17.

Interesting....And your son -- an adult -- was the only one with a driver's license. That explains quite a bit about what might have happened.