Judge M Brown Traffic Court Hearings Via Zoom 3 10 2021
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 03. 2021
- "Copyright © The Law Chronicles, 2020. All Rights Reserved."
No part of this video or the information contained therein may be reproduced, modified, or distributed without the written consent of the representative(s) of The Law Chronicles.
NONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE LAW CHRONICLES, ITS OWNERS, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, LICENSORS, SERVICE PROVIDERS, CONTENT PROVIDERS, AND AGENTS (ALL COLLECTIVELY HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “THE LAW CHRONICLES”) ARE CONTENT CREATORS AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN IS INTENDED TO BE OR TO BE CONSTRUED AS FINANCIAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.
YOUR USE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. THE REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE LAW CHRONICLES DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY. FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. THE REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE LAW CHRONICLES DOES NOT PROMISE OR GUARANTEE ANY INCOME OR PARTICULAR RESULT FROM YOUR USE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.
ANYONE WHO REPRESENTS THE LAW CHRONICLES WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, ACTUAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF REVENUE OR INCOME, PAIN AND SUFFERING, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE LAW CHRONICLES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT WILL THE COLLECTIVE LIABILITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE LAW CHRONICLES TO ANY PARTY (REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) EXCEED THE GREATER OF $100 OR THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE PAID TO THE REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOR THE INFORMATION, PRODUCT OR SERVICE OUT OF WHICH LIABILITY AROSE.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL ANYONE WHO REPRESENTS THE LAW CHRONICLES AT ANY TIME BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY YOUR RELIANCE ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE THE ACCURACY. COMPLETENESS OR USEFULNESS OF ANY INFORMATION, OPINION, ADVICE, OR OTHER CONTENT CONTAINED HEREIN. PLEASE SEEK THE ADVICE OF PROFESSIONALS, AS APPROPRIATE, REGARDED THE EVALUATION OF ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION, OPINION, ADVICE, OR OTHER CONTENT.
Zoom Is a registered trademark by Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
I find it really cool that one of the defendants Mandee Lion wanted to stay for hours after her hearing just to learn more about this court process and she looked so intrigued the whole time. It’s really wholesome
I love this judge
sustained.
That van driver's money was well spent on that attorney. I wonder what the ruling would have been, if the evidence had been admissible. Without knowing the area, I can think of situations where common sense would seem to justify parking an HVAC van obstructing a bike line. Horrible situation for everyone.
40:55 Too many tickets-- 100 hours of traffic school.
Benoit is a master of testimony 🤌🏼
I also watched about 6 hours of traffic court Judge.
In the child-restraint case with Trooper Morales (starting at 2:12:40), Judge Brown twisted logic into a pretzel in order to side with the trooper. The statute requires that the child restraint device must be used "while transporting a child."
Attorney Todd pointed out that Trooper Morales did not witness the child unbuckled until his initial approach, with the car parked. The operator of a vehicle is not transporting anybody during the moments when his car is parked at the side of a road, having been pulled over by a trooper.
Judge Brown read the relevant statue aloud at 2:19:52, but still ruled against the defendant.
316.613 Child restraint requirements.-
(1)(a) Every operator of a motor vehicle as defined in this section, ***while transporting a child*** in a motor vehicle operated on the roadways, streets, or highways of this state, shall, if the child is 5 years of age or younger, provide for protection of the child by properly using a crash-tested, federally approved child restraint device.
The Judge was just scared to rule against a fired up cop.
Thanks you are highly appreciated !
maverick should be named KAREN
Very interesting, especially the homicide case. And please wait until the end - a very enlightening conversation.
I like Mike’s common sense approach.
These officers have work to do. Stop letting the Karen take up more time!
Regarding case going on at 2:22:00 about the child restraint seat. Floridas law on texting while driving says that "a motor vehicle that is stationary is not being operated". I can’t imagine definitions like that can change willy nilly. So it seems like the lawyer had a very good point about the 5 y/o not being seen unbuckled while the vehicle was being operated.
And anyone with kids knows that they can and do unbuckle on their own especially as they get older. And in some instances it’s encouraged by the parents to speed things along.
Then the statute is worthless because you cannot see children in a moving vehicle - they are too short! And none of my children EVER unbuckled without permission.
I have to do this im in north caralina and with the court in calitrying to figure how it works i dont know what kinda judge im going to have
A bicyclist runs into a stopped car? How is it different from a car hitting an unlawfully parked car? Driver has to pay attention.
This judge is irritating letting the Karen’s go on and on. It only empowers her. The orange shirt called the sheriff during the traffic stop. Stop letting her talk! We are done! End it! This is why the lady judges are better on traffic court. No patience