Report: #1097449

Complaint Review: Placer County

  • Submitted: Wed, November 06, 2013
  • Updated: Wed, November 06, 2013
  • Reported By: Cato — Sacramento California
  • Placer County
    10810 Justice Center Drive, Roseville California
    , Select State/Province

Placer County You don't have to Worry if You didn't do Anything Wrong Roseville, California

*Consumer Comment: Incorrect premise

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

I have always raised my children to believe that they have nothing to worry about if they did nothing wrong.  On November 6th, 2013, Placer County made me out to be a liar.  On this day, a jury, not of his peers, but a jury found my eldest son to be guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.  I know this to be a wrongful conviction and I know what you are thinking, I'm the mom and of course I am going to say that.  It is true that I'm the mom, but, another fact that I know to be true is that my son does not drive, has never driven, has never had a car registered to him.  How was he charged with a DUI, you ask?  Well, there was an accident involved, and the actual driver of the vehicle was thrown as the car was rolling down an embankment.  My son ended up inn the drivers seat and that is where the CHP investigator and witness for the prosecution found him when he arrived at the scene 20 minutes later.  The reports of where his feet were is conflicting.  Never during the trial did we know or see where the driver of the truck had landed.  Blood inside the truck on the passengers side not tested.nor were the keys to the vehicle fingerprinted.  Had either of these actions occurred, my son would not have been charged.  My son was considered guilty the moment the CHP/Witness arrived at the scene and saw my son behind the wheel, and when he ran the car and found that the registered owner had the same last name as my son, his fate was sealed.  All the pictures and evidence obtained were only to strengthen the case against my son.  Why were the names the same?, the registered owner at the time (not any more) was married to my sons biological father, which gives her the same last name as my son.  

Here's the kicker and something that the CHP officer did not know until after he gathered all of his evidence, for if he had known (and if he's an honest man) he would have taken additional pictures.  The registered owner is the biological mother of the driver that was thrown from the vehicle.  Now, the reason I am writing this report is I want a consensus from your readers as to, if they were on the jury, could have entered a verdict of guilty.  A couple of other items that were produced as evidence were the driving records of both occupants.  My sons DMV record has nothing, no drivers license ever issued, no moving violations, no tickets.  The other occupant has previous DUI convictions and a court ordered ignition interlock device that was disabled.  This driver has left the state and cannot be located.  What, would be your unbiased verdict based on the above information?  Also,  my earlier statement about the jury not of his peers was based on the fact that everyone on the jury was at least 20 years older than my son, he is 31.  I was under the impression the definition of peers was equals.  My son is not a saint and had a serious conviction as a juvenile, of which he stepped up and admitted his guilt, as I have also raised my children not to break the law but if you do, be man enough to accept the punishment when you are caught.  And, being this would have n even a first offense for him, he could have plead guilty and probably received probation, fine, couple days in jail, but, because he did nothing wrong, he thought he had nothing to worry about.  He does not remember what happened that night, he knows he was not driving for the simple fact that he never drives.  He was also going to be charged with great bodily injury( to the driver) but the jury found this to be untrue.   

Sincerely, the Liar Mom

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/06/2013 01:55 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 Consumer Comment

Incorrect premise

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

 What, would be your unbiased verdict based on the above information?

- You are asking someone to give you an "unbiased" verdit based on the biased information you provided.  Yes, regardless of how much you claim to be unbiased you are still slanting this report toward your son.  Since no one on this site was at the accident site or in the court are asking the impossible.

First you never once mentioned if your son was legally drunk..a key part in a DUI.  You also appear to be downplaying the relationship between your son and the driver. You also never gave details of this accident?  Was it a solo car accident, was it against another car?  If there was only one witness(CHP) that showed up 20 minutes later, exactly how did he become aware of the accident?

The big issue seems to be where your son ended up.  You never mentioned if when your son was found in the drivers seat was the seatbelt fastened?  Because if it was, you could try to claim that your son ended up in the drivers seat by the impact, but claiming that the impact also caused the seatbelt to be going to the "not a chance" category.

For the impact to happen as you say.  Neither party would have had their seatbelt on, which in in itself is actually illegal.  This accident would have to have been serious enough to have the "driver" be pushed through a window/or open door, but at the same time this open area would have had to stop your son from also being ejected.  You also never really mentioned the extent of the injuries to either party.  Yes we can figure that the one ejected from the car had some serious injuries.  But what about your son?  To be bounced from seat to seat there would most likely have to be some serious injuries as well. If he had only minor injuries(or even none) it makes it less likely that he was some how forced into the drivers seat.

You mention that your son had a "serious" conviction when he was a juvenile. You don't say what it was and there are really only a few "serious" crimes, many of which revolve around drugs.  If it happens to be drugs or alcohol that "could" go toward the current issue.

Your idea of the peers is also incorrect.  For them to be "peers" in your mind they would all need to be male, 31 years old, and have had issues as a juvenile, doesn't drive and doesn't have a drivers license.  You can say that having different people on the jury would give different results, and you could very well be right.  But that is not the jury you got.

Then the final bit of information.  You are getting all of your beliefs from your son who at the same time say they weren't driving are saying that they don't remember anything from the evening.

Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.