To the Editor:
My story comes about when my son was in an auto wreck. Our Dodge truck was demolished. I had insurance on me and my son and have had it for a number of years. Well, I decided to drop the insurance because I don’t want to pay insurance on a truck we can’t drive.
A couple of weeks later, my son find a vehicle in Newport, so he and his girlfriend drive up there to purchase the truck. It was late in the evening because he had got some work finally. He gets up there, hunts up the truck, buys it, goes to a notary public to have it put in his name and, by this time, its really late. He gets in the truck to dive home, but the seller refuses to give up the tag. Evidently, the seller believes the tag stays with him, so my son drove the new truck home.
They get back to Williamsburg and get pulled over for no tag. My son, William, tried to explain to the officer what had happened, but at that time of night everyone is cranky, I guess. William had to park the truck at Wendy’s for the rest of the nigh.
The next morning I go about getting all the paperwork done. When I go over to put the truck in my name, they want the old tag. They sent me across the hall to make a report on a stolen tag. In talking to one of the deputies he agrees the man probably thought he was supposed to keep the tag. So it’s OK, just call the seller and tell him to mail it. We did. OK, everything is in order when William’s court date comes up. He tries to explain to Judge Prewitt that we had insurance on the other truck and now he has insurance on the new truck and she asks him if he had a tag and insurance on the truck when he got the ticket. Well, in the middle of the night, NO. She said he should just go ahead and plead guilty and pay the fine, which he did.
Four days later he gets a letter from the Cabinet of Transportation, Drivers License Division. His license is suspended for a year for being fond guilty two times in a 5-year-period of no insurance. I had a fit. I have never heard of such a law. So I’m calling everywhere. I’m told to go talk to the judge. I tried, but was told to talk to the County Attorney. I did. I explained William’s drivers license had been suspended for a year for no insurance. He told me to show up in court the following Monday and he could help me. I was to get the bailiff’s attention and tell him I needed to see Mr. Hammons. I did. Mr. Hammons took me and William out of the courtroom, into a small room. He looked over the suspension paper and said he could not help us. He then left the room to check William’s driving record. Well, he comes back in and says he can’t help. So now I’m left with looking up the law myself. What I found was the Kentucky drivers suspension (interpretation) by Wolfe and Houlehan law firm of Lexington. I read the whole thing, and where it talks about suspensions of licenses for different reasons. It reads: Any person subject to suspension, revocation, or withdraw of their driving privileges is provided the opportunity for a hearing before such action is taken.
Well I can’t figure out where the opportunity for hearing is at — it never happened. So I’m calling the Cabinet of Transportation to find out about this paragraph. What I learned is this — that’s for people who get their license suspended for DUI. Now it really don’t sound right to me, so I want to talk to the commissioner’s office. I get put through to their legal department. I’m told the same thing; this law is for DUIs and there are no hearings for no insurance and you can get a hardship license for DUIs but you don’t qualify for a hardship license with two no insurance convictions in five years. Although everybody sees my point, that’s just how the law is, so they sent me to calling the legislature. I have calls into Hal Rogers and Regina Bunch. That’s where it all stands right now.
If you ask me, when the legislators agreed that a person could get a hardship license if they had a DUI, but not for no insurance, they ALL must have been drunk when they passed it.