by Brad Anderson
- A Detroit woman joined a Zoom court hearing while appearing to drive on a highway.
- The judge questioned her immediately after noticing she seemed to be behind the wheel.
- She insisted she was a passenger but gave conflicting answers about her position.
A Detroit woman just discovered, in the most public way possible, that joining a court hearing over Zoom while driving is a spectacularly bad idea. Faced with what he saw on screen, the judge issued a default judgment on the spot, handing an easy win to the company that brought the case.
In a clip now making the rounds online, Kimberly Carroll appears on the Zoom call from behind the wheel, cruising down what looks like a highway. Almost immediately, Judge Michael K. McNally points out the obvious, telling her she can’t be driving during the hearing. Carroll pushes back without hesitation, insisting, “I’m not driving, I’m a passenger in a car!”
Read: He Reportedly Drove A Stolen Car To His Own Stolen Car Hearing
The judge, clearly unconvinced, notes he doesn’t typically see defendants attending hearings from moving vehicles. Carroll doubles down, claiming she “has an emergency and is going out of town for a family member,” adding she will instruct her driver to “pull over.” As this is happening, the Judge can be seen sitting in disbelief with his mouth open, asking, “Am I crazy, or does it not look like you’re driving that car?”
“I’m Not Driving!”
Despite being caught red-handed, Carroll insists that she’s not driving and is simply a passenger. When the judge asks which side of the car she is on, she initially says the left, which would place her in the driver’s seat. She quickly backtracks, claiming she is actually on the right.
Moments later, the vehicle comes to a stop, but the judge asks to see the driver. Carroll says she needs to get the driver’s permission, then steps out and walks around to the passenger side, never revealing the supposed driver she claims is present.
The judge ultimately entered a default judgment against Carroll in her case with LVNV Funding, which had sought nearly $1,800. Fortunately for her, she was not dealing with a suspended license at the time, which could have made the situation considerably more serious.
