Local News

Car owner charged after 15-year-old driver cited in wreck

Posted June 3, 2010

— A Raleigh woman faces charges after state troopers say she let a 15-year-old drive her car and he caused a wreck around 10 p.m. Wednesday.

The 15-year-old, whose name wasn't released, was driving a Geo Prism with a 15-month-old, a 23-year-old and two 16-year-old passengers. Troopers said the 15-year-old ran a red light at Ten-Ten and Old Stage roads, and the Prism was t-boned by a pickup truck.

Several people were treated at a local hospital, but all were expected to be OK, troopers said.

The Prism's registered owner, Apolonia Sanchez, 41, was not in the car at the time. Troopers charged her with allowing an unlicensed minor to operate a vehicle, misdemeanor child abuse and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Troopers said the 15-year-old will be served with a juvenile petition charging him with running a red light and driving without a license.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • thepeopleschamp Jun 3, 2010

    wayne, I'm just telling you like it is in the real world. Why don't you get a ticket and bring your court case about what a king said and show it to a judge? Let me know how that works out for you. If was that essy a lawyer would have found it by now. You have not discovered an ancient loophole, you have created a fantasy world of not getting a ticket when in violation. Driving on NC highways is a priviledge, not a right.

  • wayneboyd Jun 3, 2010

    In the drivers statutes I am referreed to as an owner, operator, driver, or any number of "terms' substituted for who I really am, My name appears nowhere in any of these. To allow you to prosecute me under any assumption of what you'd like to call me, would in effect open the doors to alloing the state to call me anything it pleased.
    Therefore the need for the license, the license has my name on it and thus my name can be read into the statute in lieu of any of the adjectives the state has deemed that they wish I were, and I confess they may now attach any fine which suits their fancy. But I still contend that without a license, the only thing that I can be convicted of is failing to have one. That is until I have caused bodily harm to someone or destroyed someones property.
    "Since the "term" person does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." U.S. V Fox

  • wayneboyd Jun 3, 2010

    "The people, or the sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of perrogative right, title or interest unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King nor the people. The people heve been ceeded all rights of the King, the former sovereign... It is a mixim of common law that when an act of parliment is made for the good,, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong the King shall be bound by such an act.though not named, BUT..when the statute is general and any right title or interest would be divested or taken from the king (or the people) in such case he SHALL not be bound."
    The People VS, Herkimer (1825

  • Number1SRO Jun 3, 2010

    wayneboyd read this please - 20‑7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.20-7(a)License Required. – To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle. The Division issues regular drivers licenses under this Article and issues commercial drivers licenses under Article 2C. And you can be charged for driving without a drivers license at 15

  • thepeopleschamp Jun 3, 2010

    wayneboyd, you are way wrong. If it was the case as you explained, why would anyone bother to get a DL? And the receiver of a citation does not give permission to be cited, or else who in their right mind would agree to be ticketed? And in NC you do not have to sign the citation. Many officers don't even ask you sign it. And with the new e-citations I don't think you can sign it. 15 year olds charged with traffic violations would be charged on a Juvenile Petition anyway, not a traffic citation.

  • CaptainSpleen Jun 3, 2010

    wayneboyd: You're wrong. The general statutes are created by the state legislature. They're the law, and superseded only by constitutional law. They don't just cover traffic laws, but all misdemeanor and felony crimes that aren't federal crimes. That's like saying it's OK to kill someone if you don't give the state permission to cite you under Chapter 14, Article 6 of the NC General Statutes. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl

  • wayneboyd Jun 3, 2010

    The two existing charges against the 15 year old will never get to court.
    Number one they had no license.
    You can't require a person to have something, then deny them
    whatever it is you require, for any reason, age included, and then fine a person for not having whatever it is you are requiring.
    Only licensed "person" are held responsible for adhering to N.C."s traffic statutes.
    General statutes and any adherence to them are always strictly voluntary, never mandatory. In other words if you are citing me under a general statute, you must produce for me the document I signed giving you my permission to issue me a citation for that statute. Thus the drivers license you sign in front of the license examiner, that in the case of N.C traffic statutes is where they obtain your name. They do not have one for this 15 year old. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the way I read the law.

  • cheryl9 Jun 3, 2010

    My question is whether or not the 15 month old was in a childseat. A Geo Prism is pretty small and with 3 other people besides the driver there couldn't have been room for a carseat.

  • suckafree23 Jun 3, 2010

    Is part of the story missing. The owner was not even in the veh at the time of the loss. How is the 23 year old not being charged with allowing an unlicensed driver to drive.

  • MillerB Jun 3, 2010

    Did the owner of the car KNOW the 15 yr old was driving? Was there a reason the 23 yr old wasn't behind the wheel? Does anyone know if the 23 year old let the 15 yr old drive?
    Don't condemn the owner of the car without all the facts.