Latest / Ask the Lawyer / 02/22/2024 Ask the Lawyer with Tom Peyton

Transcript

02/22/2024 Ask the Lawyer with Tom Peyton · Ask the Lawyer

0:00
Our area's most beautiful properties deserve the finest Wilters Meeks Realty Group. We focus
0:05
on buying and selling residential and commercial properties throughout the Tri State area. Contact
0:09
Meeks Realty Group online at Meeks dot us or call three oh four four four
0:13
zero one one zero one. The views and opinions expressed on this program do
0:18
not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of five eight whs it's employees or WVRC
0:24
Media. Put the power of Peyton on the side. We have the court
0:31
room experience that you need. We never give up. We're prepared to fight
0:37
for your rights. When you need action, Count on us. Put the
0:46
power of Mason on your side. The power of began on five to eighty
1:00
WCS, the Voice of Charleston. Good Thursday morning too. You. I'm
1:03
Jeff Jenkins and Tom Payton is here with the Peyton Law Firm in Nitro.
1:07
And that means the lines are open for your calls three oh four three four
1:11
five fifty eight fifty eight. Three oh four three four five fifty eight fifty
1:15
to talk to Tom anything about the law. Good morning time. How you
1:19
doing great, Jeff? How you doing? I'm doing well. As always,
1:22
there's legal things in the news happened with the legislature in so we've got
1:26
a lot of bills floating through on it seems like the less important issues as
1:32
usual, but social hot buttons, especially in an election year. I haven't
1:38
seen a ton on liability issues that I don't know that there's there's some something
1:44
milling through now about And I didn't read the details of the bill about capping
1:48
certain types of lawyers fees or something. I didn't it wasn't. I don't
1:53
know it'll get it anywhere. I haven't read through it in detail, and
1:57
see I can't without reading. Indeedis y all know whether it's a good faith
2:00
attempt to control a real issue or if it's just what it probably is,
2:05
some large trade group funded by big insurance and big business trying to find a
2:12
way, a backdoor way to limit normal people's ability to get in court and
2:15
even the playing field, which is what we I worry about at the legislature
2:19
every year because that's one of the only avenues where a person that works for
2:25
the railroad or works are low coal convenience to work and stand toe to toe
2:30
with the wealthiest insurance companies and corporations in the world, and so folks with
2:36
the money don't like not being able to control things. So they don't like
2:38
having trials by jury where they sit there just like an everyday person and have
2:45
to be confronted with six or twelve people sitting on a jury if they have
2:49
no control over and when they go back to deliberate. And you're seeing some
2:53
of that play out in the national level with this Trump thing because some of
2:55
these charges, some of these cases I don't think are the strongest against Trump,
3:00
but you know, if you get enough evidence and you can get over
3:04
legal hurdles and get to a jury, We're judging some circumstances with Trump,
3:07
and it's going to come to a head at some point. These aren't these
3:10
are real cases. This isn't fake news. It's made up or I mean,
3:14
it's we'll see how that one, how that whole scenario plays out.
3:16
Is this really going to be a legal mess. But we got some action
3:21
here from the legislature and we got a commentary on some of it from Hoppy
3:27
this morning that I heard, and it's it's about so when somebody gets arrested,
3:31
when you get booked, meaning if not with a citation, if you
3:37
get a traffic ticket or something like that. If I give you a citation,
3:39
generally you can go in and pay it, and it's fairly difficult for
3:44
someone even to find that on your record. But if you contest it,
3:50
or you actually get arrested, where you have to either post a bond,
3:53
may not may not pay money, but you might post a personal recognizance bond.
3:57
You get to that point where you're getting finger printed and you get your
3:59
picture taken, goes in a database, goes to the jail. So what
4:03
we have out there, and I think is what the legislature is trying to
4:08
cure. All it's going to be very difficult legally, is different profiteering companies
4:14
that grab those pictures electronically as soon as they're available in some public domain,
4:19
and then they shop them as a part of their website like arrest pictures dot
4:26
com or something like that, and then you know, that's of course,
4:29
as most people know, although often forgotten, everybody when they're initially arrested or
4:35
presumed innocence, so they're not guilty of anything at that point legally, and
4:39
so you've got those photos imediately being put up and then you know, oftentimes
4:46
those folks end up having their cases dismissed or they're found not guilty. But
4:48
once that gets out there, it's it's very difficult. So you'll have these
4:55
companies. I've never dealt with them in this regard, but what I understand
4:58
is they if you get arrested and you're concerned about it, you don't want
5:03
it out there. You can contact these companies as soon as possible, and
5:06
maybe they make you pay and we will take us off the website. You
5:10
know, if you pay X amount of dollars, which is the future and
5:15
employers might be searching and find your mugshot, and yeah, it's that.
5:19
I mean, I think I would be less concerned about future employers. Could
5:26
certainly be a problem if that's floating out there readily on the internet, because
5:30
you know, if you hire somebody and you have a customer come in like,
5:32
oh, that's the person Tom's got, somebody sitting at the front desk,
5:36
because all over the internet could but they might not be guilty of anything,
5:40
or they might have been found not guilty, and so there's been attempts
5:44
by and then you have First Amendment issues, because that's where it gets sticky,
5:47
wicked. I mean, you can't just bar and you say, well,
5:50
let's create some more defamation law or something, so if they post that
5:55
kind of picture. But that's real difficult because of the First Amendment. I
5:58
mean, that law is pretty flushed out on what you can or can't do
6:01
from a constitutional standpoint. So if you can go it used to be the
6:06
Regional Jail authority was separate from the Division of Corrections. Now it's all one
6:10
deal. So you can go to one website now operated by the government.
6:13
You can search, you can do an offender search by name, and search
6:17
anybody incarcerated in the in the state system, because we only have prisons and
6:23
jails at this point basically, and so the jails are pre trial detainment and
6:29
misdemeanor convictions and then everybody else is supposed to end up in a prison somewhere.
6:33
But you know, these websites have bots or some kind of computer way
6:38
to just kind of pull these images off the Internet when they pop up,
6:41
and so there's been a constant attempt by the government to prevent that in West
6:46
Virginia, and it's been done by screening out. So when you go to
6:50
these websites anyway, you can go and search somebody. You can also do
6:53
daily incarcerations where you can click on something and see eBay, like in after
6:59
midnight for example today through now if they haven't posted bond, you'll see their
7:02
picture, their mugshot up there with some details of their crown. Now,
7:06
before you can see that, you have to go through a little bit of
7:11
a hurdle, which shouldn't be a problem for a human being, or at
7:14
least most of us, but apparently helps deter these bots from coming and pulling
7:19
up the pictures. So you have to now you click, I'm not a
7:21
robot. Sometimes you'll run into these where you have nine different pictures and pick
7:26
out the one that has a fire hydron in it or something like that,
7:29
right, And that's probably helps some but obviously hasn't hasn't deterred it. So
7:32
the legislature, I guess, has got a bill in place trying to somehow.
7:39
I think they're basically trying to make mugshots kind of like not in the
7:44
public domain and make them a concluding including the media won't be allowed to happen,
7:48
right, yeah, yeah, So that's I mean, I see where
7:53
they're coming from. You have to take pictures. I think you're going to
7:56
have to to identify people when they get booked. I mean, that's pretty
7:59
obvious common sense. Usually people don't have their best look there when they're getting
8:05
their mugshot taken. So that's another you know, if whether you're guilty or
8:11
not, if you get some minor misdemeanor, but you look disheveled and terrible
8:15
in a picture and it's all over the internet, I mean, you're probably
8:16
gonna try and get it off there. But we'll see what a legislature does
8:18
with it. I mean it's a Now, that's an interesting problem that most
8:24
people would agree needs a solution because folks that haven't been convicted yet and are
8:28
simply have a charge. I mean, I don't think letting some profiteering company
8:33
pull that off the public domain and then sort of extorting. Yeah, I
8:37
mean, you know, where do you go from extoration versus regular, good,
8:41
aggressive business tactics. I don't know, but yes, it's you know,
8:43
everybody wuld kind of agree with that. The problem is this may be
8:46
one of those social problems that there just isn't really any solution for because of
8:50
the First Amendment. So I'll be interested to see if the legislature comes up
8:54
with something you know that that is smart and works around the Constitute no problems,
9:00
and tries to solve a real, real problem here. I kind of
9:03
doubt we'll get anywhere with it, but well, it's it passed the House
9:07
Judiciary Committee late Tuesday night, and now it goes to the full floor of
9:11
the House and then it has until next Wednesday to pass the House. So
9:16
it would be on track to pass the House by next Wednesday because it's crossover
9:20
day, and then get over the Senate. See if the Senate wants to
9:22
deal with it in the last ten days of the session, if they want
9:24
to deal with it, and then you know what the government wants to do
9:28
with it. If there's constitutional problems, I mean, you got all kinds
9:31
of public issues when you've got somebody, I mean, there's there not only
9:35
the defendant has a right to a public trial, you know, it's also
9:37
a right for the public so they know what's going on and things like that.
9:41
So I think if they pass a bill, then the problem will be
9:45
can't it pass constitutional muster, you know, legally afterwards, because it will
9:50
be challenged by members of the media. I'm sure, And I'll just share
9:54
too that you know, I'll get calls maybe a couple times of month,
10:00
maybe handful of times every six months from someone who had been arrested, who
10:05
had been charged. Sometimes maybe we have their muckshots, sometimes not, but
10:11
their name is in a story. You know. I just got a call
10:13
from a guy quite honestly was it was eight years ago and he was a
10:18
witness to a crime, was never charged with anything, but he was there
10:22
and that his name was mentioned in the sentencing different things, and he asked
10:26
me if we would remove it from the website. And then so we look
10:31
at it and we make a decision. And I mean, there's hardly any
10:35
I won't remove, you know what I mean, if you can, that's
10:39
probably the most legitimate media is. And that's the problem though, is the
10:45
legislature are they're going to recognize that and crash up. That makes some sense,
10:50
So you have try and find a legitimate uses and versus the ones who
10:56
simply wanted to try and create profit off that desperation of people to get their
11:03
picture off off the internet so they can keep working and not be their reputation
11:07
tarnished persons permanently around the community. It can be real obviously, if you
11:15
have some kind of certain offenses. We all know that once it's out there
11:18
on the internet and your pictures, there is hard to get away from it,
11:22
whether you're found, and sometimes we don't. We choose, we make
11:26
an ed tortoises not to use a mug shot. I mean depends on quite
11:28
not. It depends on the charge. I mean, we're not going to
11:31
use a mug shot for just a simple I mean, you know, any
11:37
fellow, any serious but you know what I'm saying. I mean, it's
11:39
it just kind of depends. Yeah, would be in this bill, like
11:43
what what prompted it? If there's some studies or something like that to see,
11:46
you know, if there's a is the problem with the media is the
11:50
problem only really with these other companies. Now we had not the current shriff,
11:54
but at one point, I'm not sure it was the sheriff's policy,
11:56
but it was coming from the Sheriff's Department's uh FAIO page. They were taking
12:01
their own pictures, like sitting around it looks like a mugshot. Sometimes maybe
12:05
they were, but sometimes it would be like here, sit on this couch
12:09
while we get ready to do your fingerprints and take a picture of somebody and
12:11
just throw it up on the Facebook page where it's readily shareable, and that's
12:16
sometimes it was when they were handcuffed but hadn't even been to the magistrate yet
12:20
to be arraigned. And I found that real problematic for some of my clients
12:26
and had them take it down. And then I think they started doing it
12:28
again with some disclaimer or something. But I thought it was in pretty I
12:33
thought that was poor taste to get something out there like that, because you're,
12:35
you know, it's just you're getting people at their weakest moment a lot
12:39
of times, and they're not guilty of anything yet, and some of them
12:41
are never guilty of anything. I think supporters of the bill and the media
12:45
question might say, well, we're not preventing the media from taking their own
12:48
photo at magistrate court or on a purp walk. Yeah, okay, something
12:52
like that. Are you going to order you know, the jail to or
12:56
the law enforcement officer or the magistress to call the me the year put out
13:00
a public notice this person's being walked to the van out of the courthouse to
13:03
go to the jail. I mean, you don't get purple walks all that
13:07
often a lot of times we find out about someone being arrested when the press
13:11
release comes out and says someone's been arrested, right, and then we independently
13:13
go and get them if they win. And if they I mean when they're
13:18
arraigned and booked, which is sometime after the release comes. It might be
13:22
several hours after the release comes. Then you get you know, then you
13:24
get the mug shot. Yeah, one thing that you know, just brainstorming,
13:30
that's actually thinking it through, you know, the it was the lost
13:39
track. What I was gonna say, Sorry, let's take a break.
13:41
The sorry it might come back to you during the braill. So we're going
13:45
to take the break. Tom Payton here Payton Law from a Night Rode.
13:48
Lines are open. Any questions about the law, Tom can answer them.
13:50
Three O four three four five fifty eight fifty eight lines are open if you've
13:54
got a question. I was going to talk about a couple other things here
13:56
coming up, So stay tuned three or four three four five fifty eight three
14:01
or four three four five fifty eight fifty Back with Tom in a moment on
14:03
five eighty WHS. I'm Chris Walters, and you know me who guided the
14:07
Uber bill through the Senate to combat drunk driving. Chris Walters did that.
14:11
Who led some of the largest tax cuts for working West Virginians. Chris Walters
14:16
did that. Do you enjoy Sunday brunch and outdoor sidewalk dining? Chris Walters
14:20
did that and much more. I'm Chris Walters, and I'm the only proven
14:24
conservative Republican candidate for Kanall County commission and I look forward to representing you.
14:30
So vote for me, Chris Walters for Kannall County Commissioner, because you know
14:33
me paid for by Chris Walters for Commission. Put the power of payde on
14:39
the side. We have the court room experience that you need. We never
14:46
give up. We're prepared to fight for your rights when you need action.
14:52
Count on us. What's the power of Patson? I Hey, thirty seven
15:11
oh five eighty hs the voice of Charleston. Jeff Jenkins with you and Tom
15:13
Payton of the Paytent Law Firm in Nitro three oh four three four five fifty
15:18
fifty eight three oh four three four five fifty eight fifty eight lines are open
15:22
for your costs. Talk about anything about the law. And Tom's been talking
15:26
about the mug shop bill. Yeah, yeah, And I was starting to
15:28
think about a solution and a backtrack. But anyway, while I was going
15:33
with it was and you can't get your record expunged if you're It's almost automatic,
15:37
although not completely automatic. If you're found not guilty, your case is
15:41
dismissed. Not as a result of a plea agreement. They don't even charge
15:45
you a filing fee. You file it and then you can Now the judge
15:48
can deny, but they have to have good reasons to deny. And you
15:50
can get certain convictions expunged. It's and when you do that, the circuit
15:56
court orders different. The law enforcement agencies involved, the state police supposed to
16:00
send it to the International Crime Center database and all that. But I do
16:06
you know, I wonder if they couldn't put a provision at the end of
16:07
that statue, just saying like, if Tom Payton has his record expunge for
16:11
a particular charge and he's third parties still have mug shots up on the internet,
16:15
you could use that order and you know, be kind of like an
16:18
automatic injunction. Those parties aren't party to your expungement, so that would probably
16:23
create some hurdles there as well. I was just thinking a way to trying
16:26
to tack that on the back end. If you ever got out of a
16:30
case where your record was actually a spunge, then it's not only are you
16:33
not guilty, it's supposed to be as if it didn't happen. He still
16:36
have these third parties with websites out there, but it's hard to stop people.
16:40
There's so much media out there today, even privately, and we're seeing
16:42
that now with what's on the news last night and this morning with h the
16:47
secretary of the Department of Transportation. Yeah, so he If you haven't seen
16:52
he last night, I guess fairly late. I think Tuesday night. It
16:56
was a Tuesday night, Okay, Tuesday night. I didn't see it last
17:00
night. I yeah. Just a little background. So the media we received
17:03
the media received an email with photos and video of his car. What we
17:10
learned was his state issued vehicle pulled over on I seventy seven in the straight
17:14
stretch. Really were near the Moose Lodge Okay, Okay, heading toward Kanas
17:18
City, Okay. Several cop cars there and later identified as his car.
17:22
And then the governor comes out yesterday said yeah, it was Jimmy pulled over,
17:26
but they let him go. We understood. The governor said they let
17:30
him drive off. I think more accurately it's someone came and picked him up.
17:33
And then soon after that city police released the release saying they're looking in
17:40
internal internal investigation about what happened right right to see if the proper procedures are
17:44
followed by their officers. And that was the governor's briefing yesterday yesterday, but
17:48
it happened the night before Thursday night. Still apparently didn't know very much about
17:53
it when that question was they just found out a couple of minits before the
17:56
briefing. Yeah, yeah, so you got some issues there. There is
18:00
the radio traffic, some of it between dispatch and the law enforcement officers is
18:04
generally recorded, so that one of the news media orgizations I don't remember if
18:08
it was, if it was you guys, hear somebody else, but they've
18:11
already gotten a copy of that, and it's it's basically, uh, you
18:17
know, back and forth with nine one one dispatch and really bad driving like
18:21
a ratic, like on curves, stops on the grass, making a turn
18:26
wide, unsafe is what I got out of. I mean, this is
18:27
we got a really big issue here. Then it says you know that was
18:33
a caller that wasn't right. It was be on lookout, be on lookout,
18:36
and there was some reference to that being maybe a retired or an off
18:38
duty law enforcement officer. Now they're saying maybe it wasn't. In any event,
18:42
there's pictures and video and so, uh, then they you can see
18:48
where they canceled the the BOLO to be on lookout because Charleston p D has
18:52
the state issued vehicle pulled over. I think maybe that's why it garning an
18:56
interest from the public initially, like on the scene or on the road beyond
18:59
the back driving from the emailer who was even quite honestly, I mean he
19:03
took the video, took the photos, and I'll just say it to me,
19:07
he said he circled back right because it was a state to see it
19:11
again, it's got a state tag and that kind of thing. So I'm
19:14
not sure he knew it was who it was going to be. When that's
19:17
also a question, right, I mean, it doesn't matter because it is
19:21
what it is, and that objectively did happen. So you think I thought
19:26
it was ten o'clock at night or something or maybe Okay, so you know,
19:30
you got a time period when you know, it's more likely somebody would
19:33
be driving on paired if they've gone out and had some drinks after work or
19:37
something like that. But apparently then the radio traffic stops once they have someone
19:45
pulled over, and then you know there's no arrests or anything like that.
19:48
And and then what the governor alluded to, he thought that he alluded to
19:55
in his press conference that it was his understanding that the police, you know,
20:00
stopped him in some analysis or whatever evaluation and let him continue to drive.
20:04
And what it looks now this is anecdotal because I haven't seen any official
20:11
reporter than legitimate media reports that he didn't drive off, but someone came to
20:17
pick him up. But I don't know what happened. Maybe in somebody else
20:19
drove his vehicle. Mean, there's a lot of details we don't know.
20:22
And so I think those set of facts have caused Charleston p D who has
20:27
a brand new chief, right, please chiefs, I think it's to deal
20:32
with this now. I guess to do an internal investigation to see what happened
20:34
there. And so we don't know right now other than the erratic driving.
20:41
That doesn't mean it was DUI. I mean he could have had a medical
20:42
emergency or other distracting issues. Yes, you know, you'd think the government
20:48
would get a full briefing on this and then see but you know, there's
20:53
just no details about the interaction between the officer on scene and him right now,
20:59
So you have no I mean, it's complete speculation on what was he
21:02
given a breaphalyzer? Was he you know? Yeah? Was it necessary?
21:04
So what I see when I do criminal defense cases and traffic stops and UIs
21:08
and things like that, is you get a erratic driving officer comes up to
21:12
the window. Now almost classically, well, I see signs of impairment,
21:17
uh slurge, speech, glassy eyes, big one, odor of alcohol.
21:22
So we you know, if if a person has a clear medical emergency,
21:29
you know they got in UH seizear disorder and they got something wanted to show
21:32
that they have that problem or or something like that, then it's not you
21:37
really can't get people out and start doing uh field sobriety tests and other impairment
21:45
type tests if they have a reasonable explanation for what happened. Now, I
21:48
don't know, if they're driving so bad at a certain time at night,
21:49
it might be probable cause to get somebody out of a vehicle, even if
21:52
they have an explanation to do some testing. But normally, you know,
21:57
we'll see and then he you know, that's just on the scene. If
22:02
it all depends on how Secretary Riskdom wants to handle it, because if he
22:07
has concern about a criminal prosecution, he probably doesn't want to give anybody the
22:15
details for example, of where he was and what he was doing and who
22:18
he was with leading up to all that. At the same time, an
22:21
employer has a right to ask about that. So we'll see how this falls
22:26
out. Obviously, he has an absolute right from the criminal side to not
22:30
make a statement, and the fact that he didn't cannot be used against him.
22:33
That doesn't mean there can't be some consequences in relation to his employment if
22:37
he decides to take the Fifth Amendment and not provide information. So we'll see
22:44
how that one plays out. Obviously we're going to know more at some point,
22:45
perhaps when it comes out of this internal investigation. I mean, it's
22:48
not too late to charge somebody, but the evidence is gone. If he
22:52
was DUI now you know now of course, was there a call made?
22:59
Did they know who he was? That modify that his status, for example,
23:03
working high levels of government calls law enforcement to operate different than they would
23:07
otherwise. We don't have any clue about that right now. That's what the
23:11
internal investigation is hopefully going to find Yeah, hopefully that I'll find out,
23:15
and maybe even just internal police. I mean, listen, in reality,
23:21
do law law enforcement officers have a lot of discretion. But they don't have
23:23
to charge every person with every crime they see. I mean obviously they would,
23:26
you wouldn't have enough police to do that, so they had They do
23:30
have discretion. I mean just because they don't charge somebody when somebody else thinks
23:33
they should charge somebody, is not necessarily anything wrong with that. I mean,
23:37
they have discretion, and sometimes if they have borderline cases, they'll take
23:40
them to the prosecutor and have the prosecutor review them to see whether it warrants.
23:47
Have you ever heard of or had a case where somebody was come allowed
23:51
somebody to come pick them up. Well, I don't usually have those cases
23:52
because they let somebody come pick them up. Yeah, right, right right,
23:56
But don't think that happens. Oh yes, no, there there are
23:59
definitely I've had folks call and described that happening. Very rarely these days because
24:08
there's for this very reason, you know, and probably folks won't remember,
24:14
but you know, when Jack Whitaker won the big lottery, I mean it's
24:17
three four, but he got a d U I R two or something.
24:19
And then back then DMV controlled the license revocation part and the officer did state
24:25
trooper didn't shut up for that, so he was able to keep his license,
24:27
and there was allegations that, you know, well, why did he
24:32
not shut up for that hearing? And sometimes there's deals on that, you
24:34
know, maybe criminal side, there's a conviction, but the officer, you
24:38
abiel gree they won't push the license side, and mister Whitaker might have got
24:44
the benefit of that. But that changed. Policies in relation to officers attending
24:48
those type hearings changed after that almost universally. You know, they were subpoena
24:52
to these hearings and made to come. And actually, at some point before
24:59
they dissolved the process, the Attorney general. It used to be the officers
25:02
would be there only with no lawyer before hearing examiner. Then they had Attorney
25:07
General's assistant Attorney General's show up at the hearings and basically represent DMV, So
25:11
it changed everything in that regard, and so you don't see a lot of
25:14
that letting people drive off anymore, or let somebody come pick somebody up if
25:18
they haven't PARAMAU. It doesn't happen very often, but no, in reality,
25:22
does it happen. Does it happen frequently? Probably? Now The question
25:27
and on this one is was he treated differently because of his status or not?
25:30
And that'll be interesting to see. And if there's it depends too,
25:33
I mean, if he's from the radio traffic, the driving was really really
25:38
really bad, I mean like not what I mean is I see a lot
25:41
of them where well the vehicle was left of center or you know, the
25:47
vehicle swerved a little bit. This is much more. I also wonder,
25:51
just this inquiring mind, we're just talking here about city police last night put
25:56
out information that it was not an off duty officer. You know, I
26:03
don't know, I don't know how that came up at the beginning, because
26:06
that was the that was the that was the traffic, that it was an
26:08
off duty officer, maybe even a trooper, but it was an off duty
26:12
officer. But did that person in the call describe him or herself as an
26:18
off duty officer and why you know what I'm saying, They had the plate,
26:22
they had everything, you know, so that makes me that is the
26:25
call itself under investigation, the initial call, right, Yeah, that's true,
26:30
and I know they backed off that they did. I mean, I
26:34
don't know what that means, because what maybe he wasn't a trust in PD,
26:37
off duty officer or state trooper. Maybe he was some other kind of
26:41
me and R or I mean, there's there's different Maybe it may be a
26:45
security officer, could be yeah, it would be something like that. But
26:48
I mean, that's true how that came about initially. But you know that
26:53
when you read the radio traffic that the bat, you believe what that person
26:59
is saying about the detailed, erratic driving, So then you figure that's probably
27:03
true. And then you have you know the pullover was true because you've got
27:07
pictures of it. Now, whether there's video of the drive, bad driving
27:08
or not, I don't know, but yeah, it's that interaction there once
27:14
he's pulled over, and see what happens. I mean, I don't and
27:17
I don't know whether there's Oh there's been a four year request for any body
27:19
cam or or video of it, which I don't know what Charleston p d's
27:25
policy is on that. Apparently they have some but because it's under quote investigation
27:30
at this point, they're not turning that that over, so that that may
27:33
come out at some point too. Because normally the the body cames, they
27:37
were on the chest, have a lot of most of them have audio with
27:41
them. I mean, I've had I have a DUI case right now where
27:44
I'm representing somebody who's alleged to be impaired when they were driving and there was
27:48
actually a little collision. I don't think anybody was hurt, but there's the
27:53
full the police have the body came on the entire time, and it's,
27:56
you know, it's great evidence for them because it's you're on the scene,
28:00
you see what's going on. And then actually the officer on this one leaves
28:04
it on the entire time when he's driving the fellow to the to do the
28:08
breathalyzer and all that, so you have a good record of what happened.
28:12
I have a big proponent of body games. I think they should have him
28:18
equipped on every officer just for officer protection. I think so the breath of
28:22
lisers happen at the scene, there's too different, Yes, and not at
28:26
the scene. So they at the scene, they can give a what's called
28:29
a preliminary breath test. That's the little little thing. Blow. It's portable
28:33
and they got to make sure you don't ingest anything for fifteen minutes and there's
28:37
some parameters for it, and then you blow into it. Now, I
28:40
think that little machine will supposedly give you a blood alcohol percentage, but it's
28:44
under West Virginia law, it's only supposed to be used as a probable cause
28:48
tool. So you got Jeff Jenkins there and he's doing these fields sobriety tests
28:51
they're hard to do anyway, he's kind of questionable, and un let's give
28:55
him the primary breath test and if it shows it's positive, although we'll give
28:59
a per but it's not accurate. Uh, then that's probable cause and make
29:03
an a rest. Take you back to the station. Now, that's when
29:06
they do the intoxicizer five thousand or whatever you call the device there and there's
29:11
some other parameters. I got to follow disposal mouthpiece and then that's where it
29:15
gives you the specific but alcohol. But you mentioned there's a lot of discretions,
29:19
so there might have been at any place, you know, as they
29:23
would not have. They're not required to give him a priminary breath test at
29:26
the scene, and that probably only happens about half the time, and the
29:30
du as I see, usually they do the field sobriety tests though, and
29:33
those if you try the field sobriety tests on your own, I mean,
29:37
sure I could do them, I think, but certainly there's a lot of
29:41
my clientele that that have health issues or weight issues or other issues that make
29:47
it very difficult to walk heel to toe, almost like on a balance beam,
29:49
but you're on the floor nine steps and then spin when you turn and
29:53
do the same line coming back and standing on one leg with your arms out
29:57
and counting to thirty. They're just tests that are supposed to doing any visual
30:04
cues of impairment, and so did they do those with him, I don't
30:07
know. There's tons of discretion there with officers about whether somebody quote passes or
30:12
fails, I mean, did they follow directions and all this stuff? So
30:17
yeah, we'll see they may never have gotten any of that point. I
30:19
don't know. We'll see what And there's no indication that they even knew who
30:22
he was. I mean, we don't know that that's right. We don't
30:26
know that yet, but we'll I mean, who picked him up? And
30:30
I mean that's the other thing you look at. Well. I guess if
30:33
he had a medical issue, that's probably the primary explanation that would relieve him
30:41
of culpability. But obviously there was some issue there because they had it appears
30:45
now that someone else had to come pick him up he was not able to
30:48
do or they did not permit him to continue to drive, as the governor
30:52
thought when he made his statements yesterday. So well, but the governor was
30:56
very clear on how he feels about I guess he was referencing driving out of
31:00
the influence. It was a little convoluted his statement, but you know he's
31:03
so strongly about that. So I guess if there's evidence of that, he'll
31:07
take swift action. We'll see. Interesting. Interesting, Yeah, interesting,
31:11
and yep, so we'll continue to follow it in again. The latest City
31:17
City Police are doing an internal investigation and Jimmy Riskin is not the release of
31:21
any statements. He won't have a mugshot because he didn't get right arrested.
31:25
You know, he got the benefit of that. Yeah, that's the question.
31:27
I mean, is there if they knew I mean, did he get
31:30
a benefit that you know, an everyday person wouldn't get if they were pulled
31:34
over in the same situation. I mean, I've seen I thought I couldn't
31:38
tell from the radio traffic. I thought maybe if I read that and didn't
31:44
know anything other than what I was reading on the radio traffic, I thought,
31:47
like the officer was trying to stop him. Maybe at one point he
31:49
wasn't stopping. That's kind of what I got out of it. But I
31:52
guess that was maybe not an officer trying to pull him over. They were
31:56
just following him, referencing that he's still going, right, because I mean
32:00
I've had less than that charge is fleeing if you don't pull out fast enough
32:05
for an officer, No, I mean if you got on it, Leon
32:07
Sullivan, which is kind of the indication, then I mean, it's only
32:10
a couple of miles up to where they pulled him off, so by the
32:13
time they got the traffic, you know. So right, yeah, all
32:16
right, Well, well we'll continue to follow it and that'll be of interest.
32:21
We'll continue to follow on the news and report any new developments, all
32:25
right, three oh four, three four five fifty eight fifty eight three h
32:28
four three four five fifty eight fifty Tom Payton's here Peyton Law Firm in Nitra.
32:34
Yeah, so if you don't want to call in on the radio and
32:36
ask a question, but you can get ahold of us at the office about
32:39
calling us there at three oh four seven five five five five five six,
32:44
or you can get on our website at Peyton Lawfirm dot com and you can
32:46
do a little Facebook Messenger chat. I was chatting with some folks last night
32:52
about a potential legal issue where you can also hit the email submission button and
32:59
sends an emailed to my computer and dad's computer and we try and get back
33:02
with you the same day if we can, or the next day, and
33:05
there's no charge for that initial conversation. So somebody asked me about, well,
33:07
I don't know about these consultations, like, well, it was a
33:12
will issue. Actually want me see the document, get it to me somehow
33:15
and then it won't take me long to look it over, and we have
33:17
a initial consultation by phone. It's no charge, but you know, I
33:22
can probably depending on what's happening, at least I can steer them in the
33:25
right direction with that initial consultation. If they want to hire us for something
33:29
that needs a lawyer to attend to, then we make arrangements after that.
33:35
But I really shouldn't hesitate to call. And this is a person just kind
33:37
of feeling out their rights. It's one of these again. I mean,
33:42
I was actually have notes sitting here from months ago. When I came I
33:45
found still sitting here on the desk, but it was self help. Wills
33:51
are bad in my old notes. So I'll say it again. If you
33:53
have assets that are worthy of trying to do it will, you really should
33:57
conduct a lawyer and try and get it done exactly. Our prices are real
34:00
reasonable to get some simple wills done. But the one that you know,
34:05
the conversation I was in on the chat board there was, you know,
34:09
somebody obviously had done this form will from staples or off the internet or something,
34:13
and it was just not witness correctly, bad language. And it probably
34:21
is a will, although it might be difficult to prove it. When I
34:25
say will, I mean meets the legal mandates to be qualified as a will
34:30
and transfer ownership of property when you pass away. It's notarized, but a
34:35
will doesn't have to be notarized. It just has to be witnessed by two
34:38
people while the other person, the person whose will it is called the test
34:42
dator, is signing. Notary is just what helps it go through easier when
34:45
you pass away. It's like an half a day butt so that you don't
34:47
have to have witnesses come and prove the will after someone passes away. But
34:52
I just do it. I do an awful lot. I really encourage people
34:54
to get their basic of state planning done. You're you're really almost better off
34:59
sometimes to just don't have a will if you know if you're going to try
35:02
and handwrite one yourself. We have holographic wills in Westernia, so as long
35:07
as it's not filling out a form, that doesn't count. But if you
35:09
have a piece of paper, I could sit and write my will right now,
35:13
as long as it's all my own handwriting, signed by me, and
35:15
it clearly is a will, meaning it expresses my intent for where my property
35:21
goes when I pass away. I don't encourage that at all, right,
35:24
and they always not always, but oftentimes those are what get folks in litigation
35:29
because it could be a will if it meets those parameters. But then the
35:31
problem is what did you say? Because wills are the language of wills is
35:37
extremely important because it basically you can think of it with land as serving as
35:42
the deed. So whatever that language says in the will will control how land
35:45
is disposed of, which if it's convoluted and you can't tell what somebody meant,
35:51
it creates a whole title mess, and then you're back putting your family
35:52
in a position where they're getting in lawsuits just to have the court tell them
35:57
what to do with the property and who owns it. Just a PSA there
36:01
again, And we do a lot of state planning and basically state planning.
36:06
If you need that done, we can. We can get it done.
36:08
And it's a very simple process conduct the office. If you have a particular
36:12
question about something a little complex, I can get on the phone or something
36:15
give an answer. Otherwise, you said, an initial appointment usually takes a
36:19
half hour forty five minutes. We have you come back in about a month
36:22
later, and with all the documents ready, takes about another forty five minutes
36:25
and you're done. Yep, yep, that's the way it's done. And
36:30
oh we've got like thirty seconds. Oh right, law firm of Nitro.
36:32
Yeah, oh we can stop by. It's one first avenue in Nitro.
36:36
But yeah, we've talked about different things today that we think will have interest.
36:39
But if you are bread and better civil litigation trying cases and mostly for
36:45
regular everyday folks or consumers or people fighting insurance companies. So if you have
36:49
an issue like that, a friend or family member or hopefully not, but
36:52
if anybody's passed away and you think there's some negatives contributed to it, give
36:55
us a call and we'll check it out. And we have a lot of
37:00
success on those type cases. ABC News is next, followed by five a
37:02
D Live. Thanks Tom Good, seeing you. This is five AD w
37:06
C H S H H H w C H S A W two four three
37:19
D R F M Charlestown, W two A three HQ Cross Lanes, a
37:22
w v r C media station. We're proud to live here too.