Sir, I understand that the suspension is an inconvience to you… too bad!
It seems that something other than traffic fines were needed in order to get your attention. Maybe, just maybe when you get your license back you’ll be a little more careful, which would be a benefit to everyone on the road.
Yes, this is called ex post facto law. The U.S. Constitution forbids this act and if you read your states constitution you will find the same provision. Normally it will read the same as the U.S. Constitution. In Florida it reads Article I, section 10, “Prohibited Laws–No bill of attainder, ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”
A classic “…but not in my backyard” if there ever was one! A sudden string of violations that most would be unable to accrue in a lifetime is a wakeup call and hints of a problem that shouldn’t be ignored, yet we’re led to believe we must wait for a more sobering consequence to prove it and initiate remedial action.
Dehetre’s lucky, he actually got a “walk”; he has no room to yell “foul”!
Give me a break. What part did he miss??? The 10 previous violations, license suspensions, or was it the few days spent in jail??? Good law for people who don’t understand the difference between right and wrong. Enjoy Mom’s taxi or public transportation!!!
Funny… there is no mention of any accidents. Is it possible that moving violations are not necessarily correlated to “safety”? I bet you can find plenty of drivers that are more dangerous than this young fellow (history of accidents, DUI’s, etc). Driving is a risk, not a right. If you are scared for your life, sell your car and walk. Don’t whine to me about safety. Maybe Al Gore should make a movie about global driving safety.
Mr. Dehetre… suggest you get a good radar detector.
wait until the state starts doing “remedial fees” like VA to pay for transporation costs……. Glad to know that everyone agrees here–his mother needs to stop enabling him—-dont know how many times I hear the remark “My son would never speed”…..
Gee, my heart just bleeds for this poor guy who even after spending $3,000, time in jail and losing his license hasn’t yet learned his lesson. He’s 23 and has more violations than most drivers get in their lifetime. Another question – what’s wrong with his mother?
I wonder if his mommy still wipes his nose for him when he gets the sniffles.
Evil sniffles! How DARE they impair his ability to breathe. As we speak, she’s sending a poison pen letter to the mayor to express her rage, anger and frustration against the vile sniffles which plague her poor, innocent lamb of a son.
How the heck did this guy even get coverage to drive? I assume he was an SR-22 driver. What other carrier would be desperate enough to take him? It’s time people learn driving is a privilige (that can be taken away) and not a right. I’m glad this putz is off the road. We’ll all live longer.
Here’s my idea for DUI convicts, habitual offenders, etc: give them a motorcycle license.
Our society is based on the auto these days. The main reason these morons keep driving is they gotta get somewhere.
I think we can get a lot of them into a safer (for the rest of us) mode of transport by giving them a motorcycle license. At least they can now get around no matter what – work, whatever – and if they get in a wreck it’ll be pretty hard to hurt anyone else.
No passengers. Don’t care if it’s Michigan in January, tough beans. DUI or multiple offenses in X years and you lose your regular license and get the one good for two wheels only.
I would love to know who his insurance carrier is and what his insurance premium is? Is there any insurer out there that was willing to cover this guy after 10 violations?
My son Joey is a good boy–he has just had a couple of bad breaks (like when I dropped him on his head when he was two years old). Ever since then he just loves to watch NASCAR and Drag Racing–it’s no wonder he likes speed now. I am in the process of writing to these organizatons asking for a formal apology.
Go Hibbsey!
I’m glad that somebody out there finally has the stones to tell a jerk like this to sit down and shut up. New law or not, he’s a terrible driver and a hazard to other motorists and pedestrians. If he was insured at all I’d bet he carried the minimal limits. Ten violations in five years should warrant a permanent revocation of his license. It’s scarey to think he’s been allowed to remain on the road this long.
While I think the law is a good one, I question whether it should be applied retroactively. When states enact various tort reforms, they are never applied to pending cases retroactively. The article mentioned Dr. Dehetre had been violation free for 15 months prior to this one. Should the slate have started at zero once the law went into effect?
Come on, get serious. Of course it should be retroactive. Are we just going to forget his 10 other violations? In my State, he would have already lost his license as an Habitual Offender over a year ago.
I’m not recommending forgetting the other offenses, but he has already paid the penalties for those offenses in jail time, fines, penalties, etc. In many other states he would have lost his license, but ME apparently did not have a steep enough penalty. To apply this penalty retroactively seems a little harsh.
Actually I think it’s a terrible idea. What would probably happen is he woudl cause an accident by having us try to keep from hitting and killing him. I don’t even know if I’d let this guy ride a bike on public streets.
He must have had insurance since the article didn’t say he was cited for driving without it. There are carriers out there that will write anything – for a price! Mommy probably paid the premium. I’m sure the girls will be lining up to get a date with this guy now that the world knows his Mommy still bottle feeds him!
Retroactive is good. He would have already lost his license in my state as well. A few years ago, my wife had 3 violations within a year and a half (the only violations she has ever had.) She got a letter from the state warning her that she could lose her license if she had any more violations. 10 violations is just way too many to have and still be allowed to drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
His mom? Well it appears the stupid apple does fall far from the stupid tree, if you get my drift. What a brilliant law and I love your post Not Surprised.
Whatever, So all the good drivers should give their cars and walk while all the idiots get drive. About time we made a law that makes you open your eyes. Ignorance to the law is no excuse. Gee did you forget that your insurance was going to go up when you had moving violations or did you have mommy take care of that. Stop your *****ing and buck it and just think you can buy a real comfortable pair of shoes for the walk to work with all the money your saving on gas.
It sets a horrible precedent for the government to be able to “change it’s mind” about what is legal and enforce it retroactively. What happens when Medicare and Social Security (ie Senior Welfare) explodes and teh feds decide the didn’t tax enough and start requiring us to pay more taxes retroactively? Obviously this is a stretch but if you have a brain you get the idea.
I am of course operating under the assumptions of a free society, which we certainly do not have anymore since everyone wants to be like a socialist country where everyone else takes care of you. “ooh, poor me, I’m scared of dangerous drivers, please government, take care of this problem for me, I can’t help myself.” Who’s the real cry baby in this story.
It’s not harsh at all. The Other Side appears to be playing the Devils Advocate but his/her facts are wrong. Many, many laws are applied retroactively and for good reason. The three strikes law in CA for habitual offenders was a retroactive law and not considered “harsh” by anyone.
I have State Farm and they have never raised my rates because of moving violations. Moving violations are primarily about revenue and secondarily about safety. Ask any actuary who works on setting auto rates and there are far better indications of likelyhood of an accident other than moving violations. But wait… this really isn’t about safety, is it. It is about telling other people what to do.
Steve, you are free to live in California. Personally I would not go near the state, and would certainly not use California as a model for a free society. If you want to drive like an old lady and have the government take care of you, move to Canada.
I drove 12,000 miles in June and through many states (as well as two Provinces) and I can tell you without a doubt that the most unsafe place to drive was California.
Not that this has much to do with the case at hand, but it does have to do with the government applying laws or changes of operation retroactively.
Now, this guy had 10 or more violations prior to the law and some don’t believe he should be subject to the new law until he has amassed 10 more violations, right. Seems reasonable to me…. Well, not really – past performance, in this case, is probably predictive of future performance – go ahead and get him off the road. I hope there is a follow up story once he gets his license back to see how long it takes him to lose them again.
I find it interesting that people who have a problem with the application of this punishment retroactively, probably don’t have a problem with the fact that State’s that aboloished the death penalty did so retroactively and didn’t put those to death that were already on death row. When you loosen the law, everyone loves the retroactive application of it (like when we got tax cuts), but toughen it – and whoa – you’re infringing on me (this is the section that has nothing to do with the case at hand).
Steve, I am playing somewhat of a Devil’s advocate on this. I agree with all posters that this guy is a driving nightmare, and that 10 moving violations in a short period of time is absurd.
I know that many laws are applied retroactively, but it seems that laws that benefit the insurance industry are rarely applied retroactively. As to this article, it would be interesting to what type of media attention the law got when it was passed and when it went into effect. In other words, did Mr. Dehetre have any idea whatsoever that he could lose his license?
These types of laws are called “ex post facto” and are generally not allowed in (or tolerated by) a free democratic society. We no longer have a free democratic society so any laws that are passed are usually here to stay unless they are “sunset” laws.
Just hope your brilliant legislators don’t make some act or procedure illegal (that you have done for years legally) and come after you, try you, and convict you. Think it can’t happen? How easily has the insurance industry deified the “junk science” of credit scoring by elevating it to the holy grail of underwriting? That’s how easy it is for your legislators to pass bad laws. Overturning any law is almost impossible once it is in place. Remember what that guy said about the holocaust: “They came for the Gypsies and I said nothing because I wasn’t a Gypsy. Then they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was nobody left to say anything.” [or something similar… sorry, foggy memory] So be very careful when you cheer any “ex post facto” law because the next one or the one after that might nail you my friend. Then it will be everyone else’s turn to say “tough crap – you shoulda known – too bad sucker”. Just some food for thought. regards, Dar Novak
Betcha mommy owns the car, has the insurance in her name and Joe is not listed as a driver. The insurance company didn’t know he was driving until now…
Had a friend from Paris. She had 14 accidents in one year. One involved hitting an elderly woman with her car. She went to see the lady in the hospital and the woman screamed and cursed at her to get out. Some people need to take the bus.
Finally, somebody did the research I was too lazy to do. Ex post facto = after the fact. Not supposed to happen but this new law is ignoring that. Yes, this idiot should be off the road. Yes, why wait until his next violation kills someone. But no, not at the expense of ignoring the laws that founded this country. Another case of “great idea, but not in my backyard”.
Technically, this is not an [i]ex post facto[/i] law. Mr. Dehetre’s loss of his driving privileges is a punishment only for the most recent infraction. The new law merely allows previous infractions to be taken into account when setting the penalty for the current infraction. It is not punishing him again for the prior infractions.
Had Mr. Dehetre not committed any more offenses, he would not have been penalized by the new law. Under an ex post facto law, the police would have just come to his door and yanked his license away the second the law passed, even with no new infractions.
Of course, the penalty is likely to be appealed. People have a tendency to do such things, especially where new criminal law is concerned.
that his fellow citizens don’t want him on the road. Simple as that. I don’t think he’s getting it on a conceptual basis. Joe, a majority made some laws, altogether too liberal to begin with. For those who are so out-of-it that they refuse to obey even these loose parameters, too bad. Walk a while, then try it again. Those same citizens have thoughtfully provided public transportation for slow learners like you. They have even paid for most of it just so guys like you have no need to be a vehicle operator. ‘Hey Joe, where you goin with that bus pass in your hand?’
Whether or not it fits the “ex post facto” definition, it seems close enough that it should not be condoned. There are two ways to lose a free society. The first way is from brute force, i.e. another country conquers us. The second way is it creeps in slowly, like boiling a frog. Every great nation in history has come to an end. For America not to do the same would be highly unlikely and would defy all history of humanity. Little laws here and there that are meant to “protect” will ultimately cause a downfall. It is part of a growing problem in America. Everyone wants someone else to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. What are you left with? A society of useless wimps and civil strife. And thus the downfall.
What about the drivers that cause deadly accidents but have no moving violations? Should we banish them from the streets? Hey! I have an idea. Lets make it ILLEGAL for anyone to drive! That way everyone will be safe from the big bad scarry drivers.
Now theres a concept Joe would really have trouble wrapping his brain around.
From the current situation whereby anyone with car keys can drive freely, regardless of license, insurance or previous driving history, to one where no one can drive? Joe will never understand that kind of swing. Too bad we don’t already have laws on the books that regulate those who cannot handle the responsibility. Laws that are there because we elected folks to do our lawmaking on our behalf. Folks who evolved a set of codes and statutes based on whats best for our given community. We do, you say? They just are not adhered to. Why, all thats too much for Joe. He just wants to drive how he wants, when he wants, where he wants, and we should just let him. Don’t you think?
I just wish there were a way to forward all of these comments to Joe’s mommy, so she could read to him about all of the love and support he is generating
“Everybody you talk to, it’s double-dipping,” Alison Dehetre said, noting that her son already paid more than $3,000 in fines, lost his license several times and spent four days in jail for his driving convictions.
I’ve said it for years and will continue to proclaim — obtaining a drivers license is a privilege NOT a right. If insurance agents or doctors or lawyers mis-use/abuse their positions of trust, they too can loose thier licenses as well!
Did I go to sleep and wakeup in Russia or maybe China? You sound like Bill Clinton. “That depends on what the definition if is, is.” Of course this law is retroactive or ex post facto. Read your copy of the Federalist Papers. The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done. Slick legislators and even slickler lawyers have brain washed the public into believing that the government can protect them. Driving is not a privilege it is a right of all citizens who are capable and agree to follow the rules of the road. No one citizen can be granted a legal advantage over another by our government. Therefore, driving cannot be a privilege;something easily revoked at the whim of a government bureaucrat.
Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said he who will surrender his freedon for security, will have neither freedom nor security.
This young man went 15 months without a citation. He did not injure anyone or damage any property. This impresses me as someone possibly trying to improve his behavior. How do any of you know he actually ran the stop sign. You are assuming that the cops are infallable. Sounds like socialism to me. All of you nay sayers and “slick willies” better hope none of your past transgressions become illegal.
Of course this should be retroactive, why wait another five years to get these guys off our streets? By then they might kill me or one of my family members. As for the government being over protective, I don’t buy it. I should be able to safely operate my motor vehicle without having to worry about some moron who can’t operate his. The alternative is we take the law into our own hands, and that is called road rage, which none of us want. Don’t put this guy on two wheels either, that is too soft. In fact I think these guys ought to be barred from anything with a motor including public transportation, let em take the shoe leather express for 3 years. If they get one violation in the 12 mionth period after that three years, give em three more. Must just be pure greed that anyone would insure these idiots, can’t be any underwriting going on there.
Let’s see: He has had 10 – now 11 chargable offenses in less than 5 years. He has paid over $3000 in fines – lost his license several times and spent 4 days in jail. It appears that maybe someone needs to stop picking-up after him before he ends-up killing some poor individual who didn’t realize this guy thinks he is above the law.
All these complaints are way off the mark. This law is not retroactive or ex post facto. No one has had their license revoked without being convicted of new violations after the law was passed.
If the law were retroactive, people would be losing their licenses over past violations, without any need to commit further crimes against the motoring public. Instead, they must commit a new offense, and be convicted of that new offense, after the law was in force.
My only question would be why the limit was set so high. By the time you’ve been caught, ticketed, and convicted ten times, how many other offenses have you gotten away with because no police officer saw you?
It is part of a growing problem in America. Everyone wants someone else to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. What are you left with? A society of useless wimps and civil strife. And thus the downfall.
So you think we should be taking care of bad drivers ourselves, rather than leaving it to the government?
I’ll confess, when I was hit by an uninsured driver without a license, I was tempted to take care of her myself, but that’s not what we do in a civilized society.
How, exactly, do you suggest other motorists “take care of themselves” with habitual traffic criminals?
The only thing I can figure is that you are trying to bait folks into an argument, ’cause you certainly can’t believe what you just wrote. However, you may be a conspiracy theorist.
Let’s look, shall we. You write, “The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done.” And you are right – however, his actions were illegal when they were committed – the penalty changed – and no it’s not ex post facto as they did not hunt him down and take his license, just past infractions counted towards the calculation in the application of the new law – you’re slate doesn’t get whiped clean.
Driving is not a right – you must obey the law. At best, in defense of your position, it is a right with responsibilities; and this guy shirked his responsibilities. A right is something guaranteed – if you don’t have a car, I guess society must buy you one since it’s a “right” to drive. That sounds more like socialism.
Let’s see – 15 months without a citation – the police are fallable – they didn’t catch him for 15 months.
His past sins didn’t become illegal – they always were (else he wouldn’t have gotten tickets, etc).
Ever heard of a “Prayer for Judgement” (PJC)? In many states, if you receive a PJC the citation is, in a sense, invisible; however, if another ticket is received in a certain amount of time, that ticket is revived and counts against you. Is that retroactive judgement? No, the violator was given the opportunity to mend his ways, but if he doesn’t – he receives the punishment due. Same with this guy.
Sure….everyone makes mistakes and the police are fallible….but that is why the limit was set at 10. That is an awful lot of citations to get. This guy is either a horribly bad driver, or continually disregards the law…either way the state has an obligation to remove him from the road. We would all expect the state to fill a dangerous pot-hole, or fix a malfunctioning traffic light to keep the roads safe…..removing this guy from the roads is the same thing. If the points on his license, past fines, jail time, and loss of license in the past didn’t get him to change his ways, the punishments need to be stepped up and this seems like a good way to do it.
If you woke up in Russia or China, that could explain your “unique” definition of an ex post facto law.
Here in the United States, that term has always meant passing a new law to punish past behavior, which clearly isn’t the case here.
He’s being punished for a new violation. What changed is the penalty calculation for that new violation. If he had not committed a new violation, he would still have his license.
This recidivist driver managed to go just over a year without being convicted of an offense. That’s not particularly impressive, given his past record.
Do we know he really ran the sign? Only in the sense that we know he was cited, prosecuted, and convicted; and that nowhere does he claim he wasn’t guilty, only that the punishment seems excessive to someone with an abysmal driving record.
I think this joe kids a moronic mommys boy no doubt..but in my case its different i dont have many traffic violations but i lost my lic.years ago and got an operating after suspension trying to keep my job an stay in school..i got another one the same year..now four years 11 months and 2 weeks into life without any issues..i get pulled over and hauled to jail…deal is i updated my address the day i moved but the state works at its speed and i lost my lic for an unpaid fine from 2002 in which wasnt a driving fine at all…I said well my bad..untill a month later when im getting nailed with a 3yr suspension..now that joe kid he deserves it but im not running stop signs..i get to work without moms help or getting tickets so i say theres to sides to the law
Charles has to be a troll as his statements are so off base that one has to see he is baiting people for an argument. Hey Chuck — driving is so not a right in this country or anywhere in the world, it is strictly and only a priviledge. When one abuses that priviledge then they must be spanked and spanked hard. This moron deserved what he got.
Wow! What a response I’m very happy to see there is still some passion in America. Now, if we could just get some of you to open yor eyes and your mind just a wee bit more. Read websters definition of priviledge and right. If you still feel the same as before, well, God bless you.
This is not about one individual it’s about us as a people. No one has said this young fella should not be punished. The question is what is adequate punishment. Ten infractions is an arbitrary number. What if they made it five or two? Which they could do. Would you still feel the same as before? I guarantee you, each and every one of you violate some traffic law almost every time you get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.
A few years back I was a deputy sheriff in a small town. One day a few citizens, such as yourself, came to the sheriff to complain about the speeding traffic in their neighborhood. They insisted he do something to protect their small children or his job was at risk. Naturally he wanted to keep his job, so he sent a couple of deputies to run radar in the neighborhood. The neighborhood residents quickly discovered that they were being ticked more often than the outsiders. This was not a part of their plan. They did not expect us to cite members of the neighborhood. They only wanted us to cite the other guys. It was amazing how quickly they became disinterested in the safety of their children once they discovered they would be punished for their unlawful actions. Of course the sheriff was now politely asked to stop the radar checks. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!
I bet you’ll all squeel ex post facto when “they come for you,” for illegaly crossing that painted gouge, driving and talking on your cell phone, cutting off another driver, etc…
Did you know in some states you could be arrested for driving while impaired if you have one after dinner drink and are involved in an accident?
I could give you all ten tickets in less than two weeks and I’ll bet some of them would be major violations. Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions. Yhink about that the next time you feel like being judgmental
I knew you couldn’t honestly believe what you were typing.
As far as whether I or anyone else breaks the law each time we get behind the wheel is irrelevant. I think you’re missing the fact that mature adults actually take responsibility for their actions, this, as I said earlier, is where any “right” comes from.
You earn the right to drive by being of a certain age, passing requisite courses and tests and OBEYING THE LAWS – these are your responsibilities.
If you fail to live up to your responsibilities – YOU LOSE THE RIGHT!
Is it, then, really a “right” as it is being portrayed in these postings?
How do you feel about amnesty laws (the other side of ex post facto laws)? Charles Manson and 3 others were sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty before the sentence could be carried out. Based on your logic – he should have still been put to death since the crime and sentencing occurred before the law was changed (I think he should have been, but that’s beside the point also). I’ll await your response.
You can’t have it both ways.
Remember, had he not gotten a ticket for another couple of years, this would not have been an issue. The law stated that if a person had a certain number of tickets in a certian amount of time, this is the penalty. Knowing that didn’t change the behavior (didn’t cause him to make a different choice).
Talking on the cell phone in the car should be illegal anyway, but if that did become a law tomorrow and I was seen talking on the phone today – I wouldn’t get a ticket, as long as I’m not using the cell phone while driving tomorrow or afterwards.
Simple answer to the drinking and driving thing – don’t drink and then drive. You see, these are all CHOICES people make.
It’s a choice whether or not you speed, use the cell phone, drink and drive, run stop signs, or whatever; just be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences.
I’m not judging this guy, this discussion is about the correct application of the law. So I say, would you have erased his slate and let him begin fresh? Be careful how you answer and what you ask for – this could be the guy that t-bones your child at a stop sign. Past performance is indicative of future results.
I love your this line in your last paragraph, “Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions.” What a rediculous statement; if I speed and get caught, I expect to get a ticket – see, I know the law applies to me.
I haven’t read all the comments but this guy is clearly a habitual offender and clearly hasn’t got the message that his driving behavior is a hazard to the public. Maybe three years isn’t long enough!
I DON’T KNOW WHO’S WORSE; HIM OR HIS MOTHER..I MEAN..DUH..YOUR DAMN SON DRIVES LIKE THIS AND YOU DEFEND HIM. THAT WAAS 10 TIMES HE COULD;VE KILLED SOME INNOCENT PERSON (S) OR LESS IMPORTANT ((SIC) HIMSELF
IF HE AND HIS MOTHER THINK NOTHING OF PAYING OVER $3000. FOR MOVING VIOLATIONS; THAT IN ITSELF IS AN ABSOLUTE DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW AND FOR ALL THE INNOCENTS WHO ARE AT THIS LOSER’S MERCY
THE STATE SHOULD COMPELL HIM TO POST A $25,000 BOND WHICH HE FORFEITS..TOGETHER WITH HIS OPEARTORS LICENSE SHOULD HE COMMIT ANOTHER MOVING VIOLATION..AFTER HE SITS OUT HIS 3 YEAR SUSPENSION
I have had a Maine license since 2002 and am 22 years old. My driving record isn’t good, however the reason Tina’s Law went into effect for me is absolutely bogus. I had two Operating after Suspension violations prior to my third one which I completely own up to and I know it was stupid. However, after the second time I got caught I realized I needed to stop driving like an *** or I would hurt myself or even worse someone else. So I wasn’t speeding like I normally would have, I was really starting to realize I needed to be responsible. When I moved out west I traded in my Maine license for a CA license.. and didn’t think anything of it. Turns out I was suspended out of NH for not paying a fine and I wasn’t allowed to be issued a license from ANY state. Why CA issued me one and didn’t tell me anything otherwise I have no idea. So I drove from CA to NH (yes, that far) with NO license…?! So ironically 10 minutes after crossing the NH border I get pulled over for a tail light being out, BOOM there’s the third operating after suspension right there which is what triggered my 3 year license loss. How is that fair at all? No one EVER notified me at any address I had that I wasn’t allowed to drive.
My heart goes out to the family of Tina Turcotte, I know how hard it is to loose a loved one. But my case is 10 times different than that of Scott Hewitt, the man who killed her. (Who had I believe somewhere around 40 offenses on his record) I’ve never once caused a car accident, or put someone elses life at risk behind the wheel.
So my point is that this law needs to be re-evaluated so that they can prosecute those who DESERVE to have no license.
Mr. Dehetre needs to take responsibility for his actions, and quit blaming the other guy
Sir, I understand that the suspension is an inconvience to you… too bad!
It seems that something other than traffic fines were needed in order to get your attention. Maybe, just maybe when you get your license back you’ll be a little more careful, which would be a benefit to everyone on the road.
Yes, this is called ex post facto law. The U.S. Constitution forbids this act and if you read your states constitution you will find the same provision. Normally it will read the same as the U.S. Constitution. In Florida it reads Article I, section 10, “Prohibited Laws–No bill of attainder, ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”
A classic “…but not in my backyard” if there ever was one! A sudden string of violations that most would be unable to accrue in a lifetime is a wakeup call and hints of a problem that shouldn’t be ignored, yet we’re led to believe we must wait for a more sobering consequence to prove it and initiate remedial action.
Dehetre’s lucky, he actually got a “walk”; he has no room to yell “foul”!
Give me a break. What part did he miss??? The 10 previous violations, license suspensions, or was it the few days spent in jail??? Good law for people who don’t understand the difference between right and wrong. Enjoy Mom’s taxi or public transportation!!!
Funny… there is no mention of any accidents. Is it possible that moving violations are not necessarily correlated to “safety”? I bet you can find plenty of drivers that are more dangerous than this young fellow (history of accidents, DUI’s, etc). Driving is a risk, not a right. If you are scared for your life, sell your car and walk. Don’t whine to me about safety. Maybe Al Gore should make a movie about global driving safety.
Mr. Dehetre… suggest you get a good radar detector.
His mom deserves to be his chauffer since she failed to teach him how to be responsible for his own actions.
wait until the state starts doing “remedial fees” like VA to pay for transporation costs……. Glad to know that everyone agrees here–his mother needs to stop enabling him—-dont know how many times I hear the remark “My son would never speed”…..
Gee, my heart just bleeds for this poor guy who even after spending $3,000, time in jail and losing his license hasn’t yet learned his lesson. He’s 23 and has more violations than most drivers get in their lifetime. Another question – what’s wrong with his mother?
Buy him a bus pass and tell him too bad…
What’s more embarrassing? His driving record or his mommy saying “He gets so frustrated and wound up, he cries, he yells”?
The lead in the Maine drinking water does things to people’s brains!
LOL!!!
You’re all nuts! =)
I wonder if his mommy still wipes his nose for him when he gets the sniffles.
Evil sniffles! How DARE they impair his ability to breathe. As we speak, she’s sending a poison pen letter to the mayor to express her rage, anger and frustration against the vile sniffles which plague her poor, innocent lamb of a son.
~Happy Tuesday, y’all.~
How the heck did this guy even get coverage to drive? I assume he was an SR-22 driver. What other carrier would be desperate enough to take him? It’s time people learn driving is a privilige (that can be taken away) and not a right. I’m glad this putz is off the road. We’ll all live longer.
Maybe mommy’s comments to the press will hit him more than the apparent $3000 in fines and previous suspensions.
Here’s my idea for DUI convicts, habitual offenders, etc: give them a motorcycle license.
Our society is based on the auto these days. The main reason these morons keep driving is they gotta get somewhere.
I think we can get a lot of them into a safer (for the rest of us) mode of transport by giving them a motorcycle license. At least they can now get around no matter what – work, whatever – and if they get in a wreck it’ll be pretty hard to hurt anyone else.
No passengers. Don’t care if it’s Michigan in January, tough beans. DUI or multiple offenses in X years and you lose your regular license and get the one good for two wheels only.
Anyone else think this is a good idea?
I would love to know who his insurance carrier is and what his insurance premium is? Is there any insurer out there that was willing to cover this guy after 10 violations?
Kevin – I don’t think it’s a bad idea. (but like most things in this world, it may make too much sense…so it will never happen!) :)
My son Joey is a good boy–he has just had a couple of bad breaks (like when I dropped him on his head when he was two years old). Ever since then he just loves to watch NASCAR and Drag Racing–it’s no wonder he likes speed now. I am in the process of writing to these organizatons asking for a formal apology.
Go Hibbsey!
I’m glad that somebody out there finally has the stones to tell a jerk like this to sit down and shut up. New law or not, he’s a terrible driver and a hazard to other motorists and pedestrians. If he was insured at all I’d bet he carried the minimal limits. Ten violations in five years should warrant a permanent revocation of his license. It’s scarey to think he’s been allowed to remain on the road this long.
While I think the law is a good one, I question whether it should be applied retroactively. When states enact various tort reforms, they are never applied to pending cases retroactively. The article mentioned Dr. Dehetre had been violation free for 15 months prior to this one. Should the slate have started at zero once the law went into effect?
Come on, get serious. Of course it should be retroactive. Are we just going to forget his 10 other violations? In my State, he would have already lost his license as an Habitual Offender over a year ago.
For the right price I’m sure he could find a carrier. What that price would be, well that would be interesting.
I’m not recommending forgetting the other offenses, but he has already paid the penalties for those offenses in jail time, fines, penalties, etc. In many other states he would have lost his license, but ME apparently did not have a steep enough penalty. To apply this penalty retroactively seems a little harsh.
He should be under the jail. What an idoit. It is always someone else that is to blame. Must be from a bd home,
Actually I think it’s a terrible idea. What would probably happen is he woudl cause an accident by having us try to keep from hitting and killing him. I don’t even know if I’d let this guy ride a bike on public streets.
He must have had insurance since the article didn’t say he was cited for driving without it. There are carriers out there that will write anything – for a price! Mommy probably paid the premium. I’m sure the girls will be lining up to get a date with this guy now that the world knows his Mommy still bottle feeds him!
Retroactive is good. He would have already lost his license in my state as well. A few years ago, my wife had 3 violations within a year and a half (the only violations she has ever had.) She got a letter from the state warning her that she could lose her license if she had any more violations. 10 violations is just way too many to have and still be allowed to drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Wait till he kills someone. Then who will mommy and the crybaby blame, the court system becasue they didn’t take away his license?
His mom? Well it appears the stupid apple does fall far from the stupid tree, if you get my drift. What a brilliant law and I love your post Not Surprised.
Whatever, So all the good drivers should give their cars and walk while all the idiots get drive. About time we made a law that makes you open your eyes. Ignorance to the law is no excuse. Gee did you forget that your insurance was going to go up when you had moving violations or did you have mommy take care of that. Stop your *****ing and buck it and just think you can buy a real comfortable pair of shoes for the walk to work with all the money your saving on gas.
It sets a horrible precedent for the government to be able to “change it’s mind” about what is legal and enforce it retroactively. What happens when Medicare and Social Security (ie Senior Welfare) explodes and teh feds decide the didn’t tax enough and start requiring us to pay more taxes retroactively? Obviously this is a stretch but if you have a brain you get the idea.
I am of course operating under the assumptions of a free society, which we certainly do not have anymore since everyone wants to be like a socialist country where everyone else takes care of you. “ooh, poor me, I’m scared of dangerous drivers, please government, take care of this problem for me, I can’t help myself.” Who’s the real cry baby in this story.
It’s not harsh at all. The Other Side appears to be playing the Devils Advocate but his/her facts are wrong. Many, many laws are applied retroactively and for good reason. The three strikes law in CA for habitual offenders was a retroactive law and not considered “harsh” by anyone.
I have State Farm and they have never raised my rates because of moving violations. Moving violations are primarily about revenue and secondarily about safety. Ask any actuary who works on setting auto rates and there are far better indications of likelyhood of an accident other than moving violations. But wait… this really isn’t about safety, is it. It is about telling other people what to do.
Steve, you are free to live in California. Personally I would not go near the state, and would certainly not use California as a model for a free society. If you want to drive like an old lady and have the government take care of you, move to Canada.
I drove 12,000 miles in June and through many states (as well as two Provinces) and I can tell you without a doubt that the most unsafe place to drive was California.
While ypur sitting there pissed off that you lost your license think about the $500. you’ll save if you call the Gecko.
What would those indicators be. I rarely write a high risk customer with numerous violations that does not have one or more at fautl accidents.
Not that this has much to do with the case at hand, but it does have to do with the government applying laws or changes of operation retroactively.
Now, this guy had 10 or more violations prior to the law and some don’t believe he should be subject to the new law until he has amassed 10 more violations, right. Seems reasonable to me…. Well, not really – past performance, in this case, is probably predictive of future performance – go ahead and get him off the road. I hope there is a follow up story once he gets his license back to see how long it takes him to lose them again.
I find it interesting that people who have a problem with the application of this punishment retroactively, probably don’t have a problem with the fact that State’s that aboloished the death penalty did so retroactively and didn’t put those to death that were already on death row. When you loosen the law, everyone loves the retroactive application of it (like when we got tax cuts), but toughen it – and whoa – you’re infringing on me (this is the section that has nothing to do with the case at hand).
Steve, I am playing somewhat of a Devil’s advocate on this. I agree with all posters that this guy is a driving nightmare, and that 10 moving violations in a short period of time is absurd.
I know that many laws are applied retroactively, but it seems that laws that benefit the insurance industry are rarely applied retroactively. As to this article, it would be interesting to what type of media attention the law got when it was passed and when it went into effect. In other words, did Mr. Dehetre have any idea whatsoever that he could lose his license?
These types of laws are called “ex post facto” and are generally not allowed in (or tolerated by) a free democratic society. We no longer have a free democratic society so any laws that are passed are usually here to stay unless they are “sunset” laws.
Just hope your brilliant legislators don’t make some act or procedure illegal (that you have done for years legally) and come after you, try you, and convict you. Think it can’t happen? How easily has the insurance industry deified the “junk science” of credit scoring by elevating it to the holy grail of underwriting? That’s how easy it is for your legislators to pass bad laws. Overturning any law is almost impossible once it is in place. Remember what that guy said about the holocaust: “They came for the Gypsies and I said nothing because I wasn’t a Gypsy. Then they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was nobody left to say anything.” [or something similar… sorry, foggy memory] So be very careful when you cheer any “ex post facto” law because the next one or the one after that might nail you my friend. Then it will be everyone else’s turn to say “tough crap – you shoulda known – too bad sucker”. Just some food for thought. regards, Dar Novak
Betcha mommy owns the car, has the insurance in her name and Joe is not listed as a driver. The insurance company didn’t know he was driving until now…
Had a friend from Paris. She had 14 accidents in one year. One involved hitting an elderly woman with her car. She went to see the lady in the hospital and the woman screamed and cursed at her to get out. Some people need to take the bus.
Finally, somebody did the research I was too lazy to do. Ex post facto = after the fact. Not supposed to happen but this new law is ignoring that. Yes, this idiot should be off the road. Yes, why wait until his next violation kills someone. But no, not at the expense of ignoring the laws that founded this country. Another case of “great idea, but not in my backyard”.
Technically, this is not an [i]ex post facto[/i] law. Mr. Dehetre’s loss of his driving privileges is a punishment only for the most recent infraction. The new law merely allows previous infractions to be taken into account when setting the penalty for the current infraction. It is not punishing him again for the prior infractions.
Had Mr. Dehetre not committed any more offenses, he would not have been penalized by the new law. Under an ex post facto law, the police would have just come to his door and yanked his license away the second the law passed, even with no new infractions.
Of course, the penalty is likely to be appealed. People have a tendency to do such things, especially where new criminal law is concerned.
that his fellow citizens don’t want him on the road. Simple as that. I don’t think he’s getting it on a conceptual basis. Joe, a majority made some laws, altogether too liberal to begin with. For those who are so out-of-it that they refuse to obey even these loose parameters, too bad. Walk a while, then try it again. Those same citizens have thoughtfully provided public transportation for slow learners like you. They have even paid for most of it just so guys like you have no need to be a vehicle operator. ‘Hey Joe, where you goin with that bus pass in your hand?’
Whether or not it fits the “ex post facto” definition, it seems close enough that it should not be condoned. There are two ways to lose a free society. The first way is from brute force, i.e. another country conquers us. The second way is it creeps in slowly, like boiling a frog. Every great nation in history has come to an end. For America not to do the same would be highly unlikely and would defy all history of humanity. Little laws here and there that are meant to “protect” will ultimately cause a downfall. It is part of a growing problem in America. Everyone wants someone else to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. What are you left with? A society of useless wimps and civil strife. And thus the downfall.
What about the drivers that cause deadly accidents but have no moving violations? Should we banish them from the streets? Hey! I have an idea. Lets make it ILLEGAL for anyone to drive! That way everyone will be safe from the big bad scarry drivers.
Now theres a concept Joe would really have trouble wrapping his brain around.
From the current situation whereby anyone with car keys can drive freely, regardless of license, insurance or previous driving history, to one where no one can drive? Joe will never understand that kind of swing. Too bad we don’t already have laws on the books that regulate those who cannot handle the responsibility. Laws that are there because we elected folks to do our lawmaking on our behalf. Folks who evolved a set of codes and statutes based on whats best for our given community. We do, you say? They just are not adhered to. Why, all thats too much for Joe. He just wants to drive how he wants, when he wants, where he wants, and we should just let him. Don’t you think?
Disclaimer: No frogs were harmed in the writing or reading of this article and / or posting of comments.
I just wish there were a way to forward all of these comments to Joe’s mommy, so she could read to him about all of the love and support he is generating
All this and the man STILL does not have a clue:
“Everybody you talk to, it’s double-dipping,” Alison Dehetre said, noting that her son already paid more than $3,000 in fines, lost his license several times and spent four days in jail for his driving convictions.
Only if we don’t allow them to wear a helmet.
I’ve said it for years and will continue to proclaim — obtaining a drivers license is a privilege NOT a right. If insurance agents or doctors or lawyers mis-use/abuse their positions of trust, they too can loose thier licenses as well!
Did I go to sleep and wakeup in Russia or maybe China? You sound like Bill Clinton. “That depends on what the definition if is, is.” Of course this law is retroactive or ex post facto. Read your copy of the Federalist Papers. The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done. Slick legislators and even slickler lawyers have brain washed the public into believing that the government can protect them. Driving is not a privilege it is a right of all citizens who are capable and agree to follow the rules of the road. No one citizen can be granted a legal advantage over another by our government. Therefore, driving cannot be a privilege;something easily revoked at the whim of a government bureaucrat.
Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said he who will surrender his freedon for security, will have neither freedom nor security.
This young man went 15 months without a citation. He did not injure anyone or damage any property. This impresses me as someone possibly trying to improve his behavior. How do any of you know he actually ran the stop sign. You are assuming that the cops are infallable. Sounds like socialism to me. All of you nay sayers and “slick willies” better hope none of your past transgressions become illegal.
Of course this should be retroactive, why wait another five years to get these guys off our streets? By then they might kill me or one of my family members. As for the government being over protective, I don’t buy it. I should be able to safely operate my motor vehicle without having to worry about some moron who can’t operate his. The alternative is we take the law into our own hands, and that is called road rage, which none of us want. Don’t put this guy on two wheels either, that is too soft. In fact I think these guys ought to be barred from anything with a motor including public transportation, let em take the shoe leather express for 3 years. If they get one violation in the 12 mionth period after that three years, give em three more. Must just be pure greed that anyone would insure these idiots, can’t be any underwriting going on there.
Let’s see: He has had 10 – now 11 chargable offenses in less than 5 years. He has paid over $3000 in fines – lost his license several times and spent 4 days in jail. It appears that maybe someone needs to stop picking-up after him before he ends-up killing some poor individual who didn’t realize this guy thinks he is above the law.
All these complaints are way off the mark. This law is not retroactive or ex post facto. No one has had their license revoked without being convicted of new violations after the law was passed.
If the law were retroactive, people would be losing their licenses over past violations, without any need to commit further crimes against the motoring public. Instead, they must commit a new offense, and be convicted of that new offense, after the law was in force.
My only question would be why the limit was set so high. By the time you’ve been caught, ticketed, and convicted ten times, how many other offenses have you gotten away with because no police officer saw you?
It is part of a growing problem in America. Everyone wants someone else to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. What are you left with? A society of useless wimps and civil strife. And thus the downfall.
So you think we should be taking care of bad drivers ourselves, rather than leaving it to the government?
I’ll confess, when I was hit by an uninsured driver without a license, I was tempted to take care of her myself, but that’s not what we do in a civilized society.
How, exactly, do you suggest other motorists “take care of themselves” with habitual traffic criminals?
Charles,
The only thing I can figure is that you are trying to bait folks into an argument, ’cause you certainly can’t believe what you just wrote. However, you may be a conspiracy theorist.
Let’s look, shall we. You write, “The intent of the framers of the constitution was to, not punish people unfairly for past deeds that were not a violation of the new law at the time the deed was done.” And you are right – however, his actions were illegal when they were committed – the penalty changed – and no it’s not ex post facto as they did not hunt him down and take his license, just past infractions counted towards the calculation in the application of the new law – you’re slate doesn’t get whiped clean.
Driving is not a right – you must obey the law. At best, in defense of your position, it is a right with responsibilities; and this guy shirked his responsibilities. A right is something guaranteed – if you don’t have a car, I guess society must buy you one since it’s a “right” to drive. That sounds more like socialism.
Let’s see – 15 months without a citation – the police are fallable – they didn’t catch him for 15 months.
His past sins didn’t become illegal – they always were (else he wouldn’t have gotten tickets, etc).
Ever heard of a “Prayer for Judgement” (PJC)? In many states, if you receive a PJC the citation is, in a sense, invisible; however, if another ticket is received in a certain amount of time, that ticket is revived and counts against you. Is that retroactive judgement? No, the violator was given the opportunity to mend his ways, but if he doesn’t – he receives the punishment due. Same with this guy.
Sure….everyone makes mistakes and the police are fallible….but that is why the limit was set at 10. That is an awful lot of citations to get. This guy is either a horribly bad driver, or continually disregards the law…either way the state has an obligation to remove him from the road. We would all expect the state to fill a dangerous pot-hole, or fix a malfunctioning traffic light to keep the roads safe…..removing this guy from the roads is the same thing. If the points on his license, past fines, jail time, and loss of license in the past didn’t get him to change his ways, the punishments need to be stepped up and this seems like a good way to do it.
If you woke up in Russia or China, that could explain your “unique” definition of an ex post facto law.
Here in the United States, that term has always meant passing a new law to punish past behavior, which clearly isn’t the case here.
He’s being punished for a new violation. What changed is the penalty calculation for that new violation. If he had not committed a new violation, he would still have his license.
This recidivist driver managed to go just over a year without being convicted of an offense. That’s not particularly impressive, given his past record.
Do we know he really ran the sign? Only in the sense that we know he was cited, prosecuted, and convicted; and that nowhere does he claim he wasn’t guilty, only that the punishment seems excessive to someone with an abysmal driving record.
Charles, I’m glad you are not in charge.
I think this joe kids a moronic mommys boy no doubt..but in my case its different i dont have many traffic violations but i lost my lic.years ago and got an operating after suspension trying to keep my job an stay in school..i got another one the same year..now four years 11 months and 2 weeks into life without any issues..i get pulled over and hauled to jail…deal is i updated my address the day i moved but the state works at its speed and i lost my lic for an unpaid fine from 2002 in which wasnt a driving fine at all…I said well my bad..untill a month later when im getting nailed with a 3yr suspension..now that joe kid he deserves it but im not running stop signs..i get to work without moms help or getting tickets so i say theres to sides to the law
Charles has to be a troll as his statements are so off base that one has to see he is baiting people for an argument. Hey Chuck — driving is so not a right in this country or anywhere in the world, it is strictly and only a priviledge. When one abuses that priviledge then they must be spanked and spanked hard. This moron deserved what he got.
Wow! What a response I’m very happy to see there is still some passion in America. Now, if we could just get some of you to open yor eyes and your mind just a wee bit more. Read websters definition of priviledge and right. If you still feel the same as before, well, God bless you.
This is not about one individual it’s about us as a people. No one has said this young fella should not be punished. The question is what is adequate punishment. Ten infractions is an arbitrary number. What if they made it five or two? Which they could do. Would you still feel the same as before? I guarantee you, each and every one of you violate some traffic law almost every time you get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.
A few years back I was a deputy sheriff in a small town. One day a few citizens, such as yourself, came to the sheriff to complain about the speeding traffic in their neighborhood. They insisted he do something to protect their small children or his job was at risk. Naturally he wanted to keep his job, so he sent a couple of deputies to run radar in the neighborhood. The neighborhood residents quickly discovered that they were being ticked more often than the outsiders. This was not a part of their plan. They did not expect us to cite members of the neighborhood. They only wanted us to cite the other guys. It was amazing how quickly they became disinterested in the safety of their children once they discovered they would be punished for their unlawful actions. Of course the sheriff was now politely asked to stop the radar checks. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!
I bet you’ll all squeel ex post facto when “they come for you,” for illegaly crossing that painted gouge, driving and talking on your cell phone, cutting off another driver, etc…
Did you know in some states you could be arrested for driving while impaired if you have one after dinner drink and are involved in an accident?
I could give you all ten tickets in less than two weeks and I’ll bet some of them would be major violations. Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions. Yhink about that the next time you feel like being judgmental
Charles,
I knew you couldn’t honestly believe what you were typing.
As far as whether I or anyone else breaks the law each time we get behind the wheel is irrelevant. I think you’re missing the fact that mature adults actually take responsibility for their actions, this, as I said earlier, is where any “right” comes from.
You earn the right to drive by being of a certain age, passing requisite courses and tests and OBEYING THE LAWS – these are your responsibilities.
If you fail to live up to your responsibilities – YOU LOSE THE RIGHT!
Is it, then, really a “right” as it is being portrayed in these postings?
How do you feel about amnesty laws (the other side of ex post facto laws)? Charles Manson and 3 others were sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty before the sentence could be carried out. Based on your logic – he should have still been put to death since the crime and sentencing occurred before the law was changed (I think he should have been, but that’s beside the point also). I’ll await your response.
You can’t have it both ways.
Remember, had he not gotten a ticket for another couple of years, this would not have been an issue. The law stated that if a person had a certain number of tickets in a certian amount of time, this is the penalty. Knowing that didn’t change the behavior (didn’t cause him to make a different choice).
Talking on the cell phone in the car should be illegal anyway, but if that did become a law tomorrow and I was seen talking on the phone today – I wouldn’t get a ticket, as long as I’m not using the cell phone while driving tomorrow or afterwards.
Simple answer to the drinking and driving thing – don’t drink and then drive. You see, these are all CHOICES people make.
It’s a choice whether or not you speed, use the cell phone, drink and drive, run stop signs, or whatever; just be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences.
I’m not judging this guy, this discussion is about the correct application of the law. So I say, would you have erased his slate and let him begin fresh? Be careful how you answer and what you ask for – this could be the guy that t-bones your child at a stop sign. Past performance is indicative of future results.
I love your this line in your last paragraph, “Many of you think that the law doesn’t apply to you because you have not been held accountable for your transgressions.” What a rediculous statement; if I speed and get caught, I expect to get a ticket – see, I know the law applies to me.
I haven’t read all the comments but this guy is clearly a habitual offender and clearly hasn’t got the message that his driving behavior is a hazard to the public. Maybe three years isn’t long enough!
I DON’T KNOW WHO’S WORSE; HIM OR HIS MOTHER..I MEAN..DUH..YOUR DAMN SON DRIVES LIKE THIS AND YOU DEFEND HIM. THAT WAAS 10 TIMES HE COULD;VE KILLED SOME INNOCENT PERSON (S) OR LESS IMPORTANT ((SIC) HIMSELF
IF HE AND HIS MOTHER THINK NOTHING OF PAYING OVER $3000. FOR MOVING VIOLATIONS; THAT IN ITSELF IS AN ABSOLUTE DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW AND FOR ALL THE INNOCENTS WHO ARE AT THIS LOSER’S MERCY
THE STATE SHOULD COMPELL HIM TO POST A $25,000 BOND WHICH HE FORFEITS..TOGETHER WITH HIS OPEARTORS LICENSE SHOULD HE COMMIT ANOTHER MOVING VIOLATION..AFTER HE SITS OUT HIS 3 YEAR SUSPENSION
I have had a Maine license since 2002 and am 22 years old. My driving record isn’t good, however the reason Tina’s Law went into effect for me is absolutely bogus. I had two Operating after Suspension violations prior to my third one which I completely own up to and I know it was stupid. However, after the second time I got caught I realized I needed to stop driving like an *** or I would hurt myself or even worse someone else. So I wasn’t speeding like I normally would have, I was really starting to realize I needed to be responsible. When I moved out west I traded in my Maine license for a CA license.. and didn’t think anything of it. Turns out I was suspended out of NH for not paying a fine and I wasn’t allowed to be issued a license from ANY state. Why CA issued me one and didn’t tell me anything otherwise I have no idea. So I drove from CA to NH (yes, that far) with NO license…?! So ironically 10 minutes after crossing the NH border I get pulled over for a tail light being out, BOOM there’s the third operating after suspension right there which is what triggered my 3 year license loss. How is that fair at all? No one EVER notified me at any address I had that I wasn’t allowed to drive.
My heart goes out to the family of Tina Turcotte, I know how hard it is to loose a loved one. But my case is 10 times different than that of Scott Hewitt, the man who killed her. (Who had I believe somewhere around 40 offenses on his record) I’ve never once caused a car accident, or put someone elses life at risk behind the wheel.
So my point is that this law needs to be re-evaluated so that they can prosecute those who DESERVE to have no license.