Powered by i.TV
October 23, 2014

Matt Roloff found not guilty of DUI

by Richard Keller, posted Jan 14th 2008 8:00AM

Matt Roloff was found not guilty of DUI but still loses his license for three years.Matt Roloff, patriarch to the Roloff family of the very popular TLC reality show Little People, Big World, was found not guilty of Driving Under the Influence by a Washington County, Oregon judge. He made this decision even though it was a jury trial. You see, a few of the jury members got into a bit of trouble. But first, more about Matt.

Back on June 19th of last year the 46-year-old Roloff was pulled over after a sheriff's deputy saw his van leaving a bar and weaving over lane lines. During testimony last week Roloff mentioned that he was only dropping off a friend at the bar and never left his car. He also testified that he was tired from a cross-country RV trip he took with his family and that the pedal extensions on the van he was driving (it was his wife Amy's van) were different than what he was used to.

The verdict was given by Circuit Judge Donald R. Letourneau rather than the jurors because a few members did not heed instructions to not look up any information about the case. Two of the jurors looked up definitions of "implied consent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the Internet. In addition, one of those two looked up information about the eye test that deputies say Roloff failed twice the night he was pulled over. After chastising the jury about disobeying the law, Judge Letourneau dismissed the panel and gave the verdict on his own.

Despite Roloff's acquittal, he still isn't scott free. Under Oregon's "implied consent" law, Matt's driver's license was suspended for three years because he refused to take a breath test after his June arrest and had gone through a previous drunken-driving diversion program within the past five years. At this point in time, he cannot get his license back any sooner.

On the Roloff Farms website, Matt thanked his fans for their support and encouragement over the last few months and that his top priority is to spend time with his family. He also says that in the coming months he'll be able to share more about what happened during the arrest as well as everything leading up to the trial.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

31 Comments

Filter by:
Anita Wptte

Refusing a breath test does not make a person guilty. I don't drink and if I were asked to take a breath test I would probably say no out of principle and dignity. The fact that I do have rights does not make me guilty either. So what if he denied the test. That is his right. It is a sad thing that people have the need to persecute rather than looking at the principle of the matter. Please people think about it. Has humanity become so petty and small that they even question what does not belong to them. We as a people have our amendment rights and if we don't exercis them them we become like cattle herded around and told what to do and when to do it., and how to do it. I personally don't want to be a part of the herd. I want to run my world the way I see fit to the best of my ability, and exercise my rights as a human being. And this is for Ihill59's comment to me. Bite me!!!!!

March 22 2008 at 3:42 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
jpbass

How can anyone here make the accusation that this man is an alcoholic ? Do you live with him and see this behavior on a consitent basis ?
Not everyone who has ever been drunk, or has driven drunk is necessarily an alcoholic.
If he knew he would lose the license for 3 years for refusing the test, and still refused,that is just plain stupid on his part. He should have taken his chances with the test. However I think he believes that
the test is biased against little people, and this is his protest. Just because a
person is over the legal limit, which is becoming lower and lower all the time, does not mean they are necassarily impaired.

March 05 2008 at 10:36 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rachel Hensley

I have been watching the show and so far Mr Roloff has not taken responsibility for making a dangerous mistake. He should talk to his children about it and counsel them on the wrongness both legally and morally of getting behind the wheel after drinking and then not confessing, not taking responsibility, and not paying the price. He spends all his time saying the "truth will come out" and he was "innocent". I thought it was a shame the way the defense attorney kept attacking the policeman we hire to keep us safe. I served on a DUI jury once and won't again. All the other jurors had driven drunk themselves before and didn't want to nail the guy so we ended with a hung jury and wasted taxpayers money. Mr Roloff drove drunk before and was almost seriously hurt. He went off the road and flipped his vehicle. Thank God he didn't hurt or kill anyone then. The truth is Matt was DUI or he would have had no problem taking the Breathalyzer. I'm glad they took away his license, at least for three years other people on the road will be a little safer.

March 04 2008 at 5:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Settle

QUILTY QUILTY on ALL COUNTS!! Just another COVER-UP!

March 04 2008 at 1:17 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Peter

I think that Matt is guilty od DuI, dont get me wrong I love the show to HOWEVER there is no reason to deny a breath test if you havent drank lots....In the recent episode, he started referring to the fact that little people test different from normal average height people on equipment and tests, However, if he believed that this was the case he should just have taken the test anyways and IF it was wrong then at court he could have advised his attorney to bring in his own breathlizer test to prove in court that it would register wrongly....He is totally guilty, besides he was found guilty earlier in his life and said he quit drinking for 2 years except now he is drinking again which means that he moved on from his previous scare...

All in all, I have to say that despite the fact that the COP was wrong to make prejudice judgements on not offering him the so-called 3 sobriety tests because of his physical handicaps, Matt was guilty.

March 04 2008 at 2:46 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Peter's comment
Tammy

I love the Roloff family, and to find that Matt is an alcoholic who has driven drunk before dismays me because I've lived with an alcholic. When it comes to drinking and driving it is a simple fact - they lie! The officer said that he smelled alcohol on Matt's breath. Matt refused the breathalizer, but said he had not been drinking. If he had not been drinking there should have been no reason to decline the breathalizer. Little person or not, a breathalizer is not going to pick up alcohol where there is none. Quite simply, he got caught, and he knew that for his reputation the best way to deal with this was to deny, deny, deny, and not have the breathalizer as evidence. That way he could deny and get at least some people to believe his story. I think the judge made the right decision. If Matt is a recovering alcoholic who has started drinking again, the last place he needs to be is behind the wheel of a car. And I agree with others who have posted here. For someone who touts that little people should be treated equally he sure was quick to call upon his disability as a defense. If he had never been arrested on DUI before I could buy that, but as I said alcoholics lie, and I believe he is lying about this.

Weaving, alcohol smell on the breath, previous DUI, positive nystagmus test, refusal to take a breathalizer - sounds like the officer made the right charge to me. He would have been negligent had he not arrested Matt. Big tv contract, impressionable kids at home, big business to run, reputation to retain - sounds like Matt had good reasons to lie.

March 04 2008 at 6:54 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Ronda

The only reason no one looked into this case (the prosecutor's) is because he is a star on TV and what better way to get attention is by charging someone with some bull crap!! First, the office wouldn't even listen to what he had to say! Second, there was no proof of anything except that the officer says his eyes were glossy!! This is a man who has how many disabilities and you honestly believe that you can do this test on him.
Third, he is a cop and he can say whatever he wants on the stand and it doesn't have to be the truth!! A cop cannot be charged with perjury!!! Why wouldn't the cop say whatever he wants, once again He is on TV now!! The whole world is seeing him and the prosecutor!!! They don't care about the truth, because they refused to listen that night that they arrested him!!

March 04 2008 at 1:45 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
TheOne

Look at that, another habitual offender getting off. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic and it's a damn shame that he used his disability and celebrity to plead his case. He refused sobriety tests, used his profile in the community to influence a jury, and then had the whole sad shamble broadcast to world laughing all the way to the bank. So much for accepting responsibility and setting a positive example for his children and viewers alike. --- Look at me, I'm four feet tall, already lacking the physical ability to properly control a vehicle and I'll have a drink to ease my nerves on the ride home.

March 04 2008 at 1:37 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Eunice

Matt Roloff got found not guilty, 'not' guilty, so all of you just need to take it and and shove it....No one is perfect so all of you people who are downing Matt and his family. You all need to look in the mirror and worry about your own problems!! I watch the show every week and still continue to watch it, despite there difficulties.

March 03 2008 at 9:35 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mark Curran

When you don't weigh much, your BAC can go over the legal limit with just one beer. This guy should not be driving at all after drinking any.

No one was injured in this traffic incident. But anytime anyone is hurt in any accident, they ought to have sobriety breath tests of all involved. I know a girl that hit two older people years ago, they were walking on a city street. She killed them both. She had been drinking. She was cute and her family was rich, and she didn't have to take a sobriety test. I think ALL accidents should have sobriety test, fatalities or not. We would find a lot more people are killed by drinking drivers than we think

March 03 2008 at 9:06 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
EE

Fuck the police, coming straight from the underground.

March 03 2008 at 8:52 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners