Can You Guess What This Person Was Charged With?

unnamedYou might have guessed that Sanjuana Mercado-Mendez, 52, was a drunk driver, but there is a twist after New Mexico police pulled over her weaving blue 1994 Oldsmobile.

When Santa Fe Deputy Clay Cullison the car, it was being driven by Mercado-Mendez’ 13-year-old grandson, who was reportedly intoxicated. Cullison also found two open beer cans in the car.

After she stumbled out of the car, Cullison was reportedly told that she had the 13-year-old drive to avoid getting into trouble.

She is now charged with suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child abuse and possession of an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle.

Kudos: Professor Roger E. Schechter

19 thoughts on “Can You Guess What This Person Was Charged With?”

  1. My high school driver education instructor had lost his license for getting too many DUIs. It was good for the students because he would have us drive him around to do his grocery shopping, pick-up dry cleaning, run in to the pharmacy for his mother’s prescriptions, etc. and deliver all the stuff to his house. We got a lot of practical driving experience. There were three kids and the instructor in the car, and we would trade off, all getting experience in all kinds of driving and parking situations. I don’t know if he was supposed to do this, but in those days, it wasn’t at all cool to rat someone out, so nobody said anything. Unfortunately, teen males are now a bunch of whiney wimpy mama’s boys, who tell mama everything and of course she’s got to immediately stick her nose into it. When boys were raised by real men, they knew how to keep their mouths shut.

  2. We have a term for this. Only in New Mexico. This also being New Mexico, I think the kid knew how to drive… From what I’ve been told, 14 was the legal age to drive – maybe into the 1970? Twenty-five years ago, had the kid been sober, he would have gotten away with driving at that age.

    A year or so ago these two guys were driving from Ruidoso, where they had been at the horse races, back to Roswell. It was way after midnight. They were on Highway 70 in the middle of nowhere. As with any story out of New Mexico…. liquor was involved. Their car was found on the side of the road, out of gas, I believe. There was no sign of the two men. This being New Mexico, and Roswell being Roswell, I think you can safely assume the tall tale that began to circulate online. The usual UFO sites were hysterical. They had a real-life abduction.

    Seems like the stalwart citizens decided to walk for help. Instead of sticking to the highway, I gather one of them thought they knew where they were. They walked way into one of the pastures and passed out at a corral. A good time was had by all.

  3. This reminds me of how a cab company went out of business in TN. I landed there just at sunrise and the FBO was still closed. So I read the note which said to call for a cab at a number. i did and got no answer at all. I had to wait another hour for the office to open and I asked what was with the cab company. They told me that it was out of business since the husband who was driving a cab was arrested for a DUI. He then called the other driver, his wife to come and get him at the police jail. She did and she was even more drunk than her husband. So they locked her up too. Thus the business went bust.

  4. “Under the circumstances”???? Are you insane???? She belogs behind bars and that kid needs to be in a nurturing loving home where he won’t be given ALCOHOL! You’re an idiot.

  5. Hah-ha, Paul. You remind me of a classic Columbo episode called “Murder of a Rock Star,” featuring Dabney Coleman as the guest murderer, playing an attorney, and, of course, Peter Falk, with his wife Shera as well. I won’t give away the story, but Dabney has a perfect alibi, as he’s caught by a speed camera at a location far from the crime scene and was electronically ticketed at the time of the murder. The story was written by the famed and fascinating photographer (and writer) Billy Woodfield.

  6. Yes, Professor Turley proves over and over again that the law applies to the “little people.” You can prove that to yourself any day of the week. Just go to any major city and park your car illegally. I guarantee you that the local government there will be fast, efficient, and effective, providing a level of service that would put the private sector to shame. You WILL get your ticket faster than you can imagine.

    However, what Professor Turley does NOT like to discuss is the reality that the very rich and politically connected do NOT have to concern themselves with the law in the slightest. It does NOT apply to them. They are over and above the law, which, again, only applies to “little people.”

    So when Professor Turley, shows THIS mug shot, then you will know that something truly extraordinary is taking place in America. But this will not be happening in our lifetimes.

    1. Ralph – this is a relatively new addition to Turley’s blog. He could be running the mug shots of those caught by speed cameras in Scottsdale AZ going 160 mph and smiling at the camera. 😉

    2. Ralph Adamo writes, “Yes, Professor Turley proves over and over again that the law applies to the “little people.”

      Ralph, contemplate this if you haven’t already: the world’s wealthiest 62 people, most of whom live in the United States, have as much wealth as fifty percent of the human population on Earth combined.

      If you need Professor Turley to remind you that all you are is a slave to the wealthy, you haven’t been been thinking very hard.

      All Hillary Clinton and her husband, who Ajamu Baraka calls appropriately calls a “petty opportunist politician,” are trying to do is climb up your back like the rest of them and out of the slave class.

      And, ff you’re not voting for a third party, you still don’t get it.

  7. Turley has a nasty streak, that’s the only way to explain this petty and mean-spirited ritual. I’ve been thinking that it’s far beneath him, but after a while one must conclude that it’s not.

  8. Mr. Reardon: You have the right to remain stupid. Anything you say can and will be ignored.

  9. When you are really drunk you don’t think clearly. Since she was in the back she was wasted and it could be the boy drank the beer without her knowledge. Then again, she might have foisted a few beers on a 13 year old who is driving for the first time.

  10. “She was doing her best under the circumstances”? WTF

    She was drunk and so was her 13 year old grandson! And her best was to have the boy drive drunk so SHE would not get in trouble? Brilliant!

    Publish that mugshot for all to see.

  11. Mug shots are public information. Don’t want to be embarrassed? Well, then don’t do this kind of crap. Simple!

  12. The best she could have done was to call a cab or not have gotten intoxicated. This isn’t defamation this is current events.

  13. She was doing her best under the circumstances.
    Lets publish Mug Shots which we contrive, of all the newspaper publishers of newspapers that publish Mug Shots. A person accused of a crime should not be defamed like this.

Comments are closed.