Posted on 12/10/2009 5:29:32 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - There are two different laws on the books in Tennessee dealing with the same issue. No one is sure just who can take away your driver's license.
Back in 1989, Tennessee lawmakers passed a law that 20 years later has some still asking an important question. The issue is who has the power to take your driver's license and the authority to give it back.
Four years ago, when Ryan Armstrong was 17 years old, he said his girlfriend told him she'd had too much to drink. She asked Ryan to drive her home. He had been drinking too and lost control of the car. His girlfriend was killed.
He said he relives that day over and over in his mind, wishing he could change what happened.
"That's the biggest regret I have," said Ryan.
In court, Ryan pled guilty to a vehicular homicide charge. As part of his plea agreement, the judge revoked his driver's license for three years.
Three years later, the Tennessee Department of Safety will not re-instate his license.
"They told me it was impossible, that I wouldn't get it back until 2014," said Ryan.
Attorney Jim Todd is representing Ryan in his effort to get his license back. He is surprised by the difficulty his client is having.
"We have affidavits from his probation officer, his parole officer, even the victim of this case's mother supports him getting his license back," said Todd.
The judge who revoked the license signed a court order re-instating Ryan's driving privileges. The Department of Safety said that does not matter.
There are two conflicting laws that both address what happens when someone is convicted of vehicular homicide. The first law passed back in 1937 says the Department of Safety revokes that person's license. A second law passed some 50 years later gives the authority to judges to ban that person from driving.
Todd said the two laws have created a lot of confusion.
"No one seems to understand whose authority it is to take away a license. The Court of Criminal Appeals says the courts have the authority to revoke licenses, but, again, the Department of Safety says, 'No.' The Tennessee Attorney General says, 'No,'" said Todd.
Legal expert David Raybin told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "The law is real clear on this." Raybin was part of the group that helped write the 1989 law which he said takes precedence, meaning in Ryan's case, it should be up to the judge, not the Department of Safety.
The Department of Safety would not talk with NewsChannel 5 Investigates about the case or the problems created by having two conflicting laws. According to Safety Commissioner David Mitchell in a legal brief prepared in response to Ryan's request for his license to be re-instated, the Safety Department maintained that a criminal court does not have the authority to revoke a driver's license, only prohibit someone from driving.
"The Department of Safety says, and, I've talked to them about this in other cases, 'We don't care what the judge says. We go by this other law,'" said Raybin.
Legal experts said in courtrooms across Tennessee, judges routinely revoke drivers' licenses for various offenses, creating situations where you have two separate entities making decision on the same issue.
"I think somebody needs to get around to it and decide who's in charge," said Ryan.
Ryan walks or asks a friend for a ride to get around the MTSU campus where he is a student. He still is hoping the Department of Safety will change its mind and re-instate his license.
Others though, like Raybin, are not as optimistic.
"They're [the Department of Safety] not going to give in. They say until some court tells them not to, they're going to follow this [the 1937] law," said Raybin.
Raybin said it will take a court decision to clear up the matter. Ryan Armstrong and his attorney are prepared to challenge the law, if that's what it takes. They are still waiting to hear from the Safety Department about his appeal. The Department still has another two months to respond.
The Department said, in general, it will re-instate a person's license when his or her sentence is over. Ryan got 8 years probation, so that means he still has another 5 years under the Safety Department's rules before he'll be able to drive again.
Legal experts said the case potentially could impact hundreds of thousands of people across Tennessee who lose their driver's license in court for getting in trouble for everything from DUI and implied consent violations to speeding and even failing to pay traffic tickets.
Worthless media.
This isn’t unique to tenn. And it’s not new either. It all started when MADD demaded that cops confiscate the license of any and all suspected of drunk driving BEFORE gettin their due process.
To do that legally, states had to make the DMV grant powers to cops to act on behalf of the DMV at the time of the citation. Judges and lawyers get cut out of the loop. The DMV actually has the authority to recall any license they issue(thats all of them, no one else has the authority to issue a drivers license) to anyone it chooses. Laws be damned. Judges have no say in it.
He should do what every drunk driver in WV seems to do when their license gets revoked, trot across the border to Ohio or PA and get licensed in that state using a friends address...
If only legislators were personally liable for the laws they pass...
The founders must be turning over in their graves.
A little off topic, but the one that gets me is when a parent gets behind on child support, often through a job loss, the state yanks their driver’s license. Where’s the logic in that? Damned hard to find a job even in a great economy with out a valid license.
He kills a girl by being irresponsible and he is inconvenienced by having to get a ride to school.
My sympathy glands must be malfunctioning.
A license to do what you have a retained constitutional right to do is a fiction.
This isn’t about sympathy; its about stupid laws written by morons.
What gets me is how the hell wage garnishment ever became legal. Why is it my responsibility to mail in a goddam child support check for my employees?
utter BS is what it is.
He killed his girlfriend driving while drunk. He should have gotten some hard prison time instead of just having his license revoked. No sympathy here at all either.
I have always had a problem with the so called driving “privilege”. If a person pays taxes, and buys a car, who is to say they don’t have a RIGHT to drive on a public road after proving they are competent to do so safely? For punitive measures, fines could be progressive. This would also increase revenue to the coffers, which is the state’s goal to begin with. For example, first offense DUI, mandatory jail time and a ridiculous fine, and for each subsequent offense it doubles. After the second one, you will either behave or go bankrupt. The same for speeding. If the fine for third offense in 12 months speeding was $100 per mile per our over the posted speed, do you think you would slow down?
Agreed. Just one more unfunded mandate. The parent should be required to write the check monthly, just like a mortgage (and I speak as a father who has been garnished for eight years.)
Google Memphis City Councilwoman. There is no justice.
I’m not a lawyer, but it’s a reasonable assumption that if the Dept of Safety can’t show that they took the necessary legal steps to revoke the license and they don’t recognize the authority of the court that did... the license wasn’t in fact revoked and is still valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.