Vernon teen pulled over for drunk driving before he even has his license
VERNON – A drunk teenager was slapped with an Immediate Roadside Prohibition over the long weekend, and he doesn’t even have his driver’s license yet.
The 17-year-old was caught driving erratically in the Kalamalka Road area of Coldstream on Friday, April 3, around 10:30 p.m., RCMP spokesperson Gord Molendyk says.
An officer patrolling in the area pulled him over and determined he, and his two teenage passengers, were drunk. Police issued the unlicensed driver a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
“Maybe he’s going to be applying in the next while for a license, now he can’t at least for 90 days, plus it will be on his record should he go for a license,” Molendyk says.
The Toyota Tercel he was driving (his mother’s work vehicle) will also be impounded for a month. Molendyk says the three teens were picked up by their parents.
To contact the reporter for this story, email Charlotte Helston at chelston@infonews.ca or call 250-309-5230. To contact the editor, email mjones@infonews.ca or call 250-718-2724.
Join the Conversation!
Want to share your thoughts, add context, or connect with others in your community? Create a free account to comment on stories, ask questions, and join meaningful discussions on our new site.
6 responses
-
-
AUTOMATIC TEN SUSPENCE TIL ELIGBLE TO WRITE HIS TEST FOR BEGINIORS LICENCE ;THEN DOUBLE TRAINING TLME MIGHT ;TRAIN HIS PARENTS ;PLUS THEY SHOULD BE FINED FOR DAISEING STUPID OFF SPRING ;SOUNDS ABOUT FAIR TO MYSELF AND OTHER PEOPLE ;HOW WOULD YOU REAL WITH THIS SHOULD HE HARM YOUR CHILD OR GRAND CHILD ;LOCK THE WHOLE FAMILY UP FOR BEING UNINTELLIGENT START THERE THEN GO FORWARD!
-
-
-
-
ah, yet more victims of unconstitutional legislation. its a principle of fundamental justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty, yet the 90 ban and seizure of the car for a month has arbitrarily labelled the kid as guilty.furthermore the cops have no jurisdiction as the kid has not dl, meaning no contract, the kid did not agree to the conditions of the MVA, and with no victim or corpus delicti there is no jurisdiction. the dl and mva are based on contract law, no contract no authority. there is no law that requires on to have a dl.all the kid has to do is challenge jurisdiction before the trial begins.in as much as the kid was wrong for driving while drunk, [if indeed he was drunk, what was the reading] he is responsible for his actions, as so are his parents.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.