 
  
 |
|
|
click to download our complete Common Law Catalog
In court? Need assistance? JurisdictionaryÆ
relating to traffic laws: state govt can restrict driving on the public roads to drivers with valid current licenses, and restrict drivers to vehicles registered as having passed inspection, notwithstanding argument about a "right to travel". Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610 (a state may restrict the use of its highways to drivers who have complied with the license, insurance and vehicle registration laws of this state or, if the driver is a non-resident, of his home state)
1. This case isolates "right to travel" defense only… The court only addressed the very narrow "right to travel" issue. Not a valid case when Property Rights and other rights of choice are the issue.
Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535 (state statute which denies or suspends drivers license for failure to carry insurance or comparable financial responsibility does not violate constitution) (this authority to prescribe reasonable requisites for the "privilege" of driving on the public highways is inherent in state and local govts)
2. Where a state issues a permission, it is reasonable that such permission can be revoked by issuer for any reason it chooses. This case does not address any element of the right of an individual. It only addresses contractural elements of licensing and has no effect on a Rights defense.
State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ("the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures.")
3. This court addressed two elements; one. Right to travel. And two. Right to operate a motor vehicle. For #one see response 1 above. For #two,,,,,, we don't assert that a right to operate a "motor vehicle" (as defined federally and as this court is using the term) as a right that is protected by the constitution. The federal definition SW2d is using is;
Title 18 USC 31:
"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City. As a consequence to this fact, this court has not addressed the issue we promote on property rights.
Quackenbush v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 454, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 (state can require insurance for drivers licenses) ditto (state has legitimate interest in requiring financial responsibility of drivers) Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 87 RI 226, 139 A2d 869 (this crank, a lawyer who was evidently his own favorite client and eventually got himself disbarred for threatening to bomb the courthouse, Carter v. Berberian (RI 1981) 442 A2d 1263, later got his 13 year old son to sue over the age requirement for learners permits, see below) see generally essay, Validity of Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, 35 ALR2d 1011 & suppl.
See # 2 above
 |
Guerrero v. Ryan (1995) 272 IL.App.3d 945, 209 IL.Dec 408, 651 NE2d 586 app.denied 163 IL.2d 556, 657 NE2d 621 cert.den 516 US 1180 (state can suspend license already issued if lack of insurance is discovered, drivers license not a basic constitutional right)
See #2 above
similarly State v. Turk (1982) 197 Mont 311, 643 P2d 224 ditto Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 87 RI 226, 139 A2d 869 (cannot evade insurance requirement by religious objections)
State v. Cosgrove (So.Dak. 1989) 439 NW2d 119 cert.den 493 US 846
similarly State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ("This is obviously a growing school of thought which had been misguided.... The notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways." The court made a point of discussing many of the crank arguments against requiring drivers licenses evidently the crank notion is not only are the licensing requirements inapplicable to them but also speed limits)
There is no Right to operate a "motor vehicle" to my knowledge. The privelege matter can be referred to #2 above.
similarly City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366 ("No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that ... every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operator's license.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads.")
4. more carefully worded language that does not address private property and individual rights…….
similarly City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981 ("Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures.")
5. This rhetoric is representative of the accepted thinking on the subjects herein addressed. Responding to each;
("Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. I agree, within the limit of this statement, however, adequate "restraint" exists as a byproduct of the constitution in two ways; first, restraint in the form of regulation (regulation of traffic is done with signs, lines, curbs, lanes, speed signs (informing what the expected rate of speed of other citizens fitting the "lowest common denominator" principle may be doing) all of which inform the individual about what is ahead and what they should reasonably be able to expect. This is a duty of government as a result of its mandate to provide for the health and welfare of the people. Regulation is the visible product of that duty). Second, citizens have a constitutionally mandated self restraining responsibility to harm no other. When harm does occur, existing regulation is used to determine which citizen was at fault thereby providing the necessary elements with which to compensate the victim or untangle rights entangled. Regulation has no other purpose.
The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. Constitutions do not grant rights. Laws governing the use of public highways are unnecessary in light of the restraints described above. Consequently, vehicle codes that are being applied to citizens and their use of private property are unconstitutional based upon the fact that no compelling state interest exists due to the restraints already in place as described above.
 |
The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. This, of course is propaganda spread by shallow men in support of aspirations of castles (how much marble do you have in your home?) Society is no better off as a result of vehicle codes. Accidents will happen at generally the same rate with or without such codes. Hence, these codes are a manifestation of an errant definition of the words "compelling state interest" which must exist before a state may exert a police power. And which don't exist here.
similarly ("The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and nothing in that document or in our state constitution has even the slightest appearance or an implicit guarantee of that right. The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel ... is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.")
See #2 above
Berberian v. Petit (RI 1977) 374 A2d 791, 86 ALR3d 468 (this case was a 13-year-old boy challenging the age requirement for learners permits, the court quoted from a 1958 decision involving his father's challenge to the requirement for motorists insurance) similarly Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338
similarly Azubuko v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st Cir unpub 9/3/96) cert.den 520 US 1157 ditto (state can require drivers license, vehicle registration, display of license plate, etc., notwithstanding argument about "right to travel") State v. Weisman (Minn.App unpub 11/1/88) cert.den 489 US 1080 ditto Maxfield v. Corwin (WD Mich unpub 3/17/87) ditto ("While there exists a fundamental right to travel, neither this court, nor our [state] supreme court, nor the US Supreme Court has ever held that there exists a fundamental right to drive a moter vehicle." State can require display of official registration tag, and that driver present police with valid license and car registration, even against purported religious objections, and can punish for use of homemade license plate)Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839
No compelling state interest. See #5 above.
ditto City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010 State v. Patterson (Kan.App unpub 2/14/92) review den (Kan. Supm 1992) 250 Kan 807 ditto US ex rel Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County (7th Cir 1995) 73 F3d 669
similarly Commonwealth v. Levy (1961) 194 Penn.Super 390, 169 A2d 596 see especially essay, Validity of statute making it a criminal offense for operator of motor vehicle not to carry or display his license or registration, 6 ALR3d 506 & suppl.)
similarly (right to "property" does not enable perp to drive his car despite its lack of registration, safety inspection, license plate, drivers license, etc., nor to prevent it from being impounded until he complies with the licensing laws) Wisden v. City of Salina (Utah 1985) 709 P2d 371
This is perplexing language….. the first to mention Right to property. I suspect a definition of that right must be part of this decision and therefore I will get the entire case for assessment. In any case,,,,,, the decision, if it actually comes down to this is defective for the reasons stated in #5 above…..
similarly (perp already had an SSN but refused, supposedly on religious grounds, to provide it to apply for drivers license and thereby refused to renew or carry drivers license on religious grounds "The appellant advised [the policewoman] that he could not be arrested because her God was not as big as his God. He referred to her as 'an agent of the socialist govt ...", court held the state had sufficient reasons to require SSNs for drivers licenses and that, since driving without a license is a crime, religious fastidiousness could not excuse a criminal act) State v. Loudon (Tenn.Crim.App 1993) 857 SW2d 878 similarly (when cranks already have SSNs but refuse to reveal them for drivers licenses applications, supposedly on religious grounds) Penner v. King (Mo.Supm 1985) 695 SW2d 887
I need to get these cases as well, maybe it will provide the "compelling state interest" element we are looking for. And, I am yet to see the origin of the duty that a citizen has to the state to license. I can understand the potential duty to other citizens to have insurance…… but not license.
similarly (refused to reveal SSNs for drivers license on privacy grounds, citing various laws on non-disclosure of SSNs, court held that state could require disclosure of SSN on license application) Nowlin v DMV (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 if state law requires the SSN on the license application then the use of the SSN is not optional and an applicant who fails to provide his SSN will thereby be refused a license. Schmidt v. Powell (IL App 1972) 4 IL.App.3d 34, 280 NE2d 236 Ostric v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Policies (Mass 1972) 361 Mass 459, 280 NE2d 692
I wonder how this case would do before the US Supreme Court?
similarly (crank claimed to have unilaterally revoked his SSN and tried to invoke state law that would permit an individual without an SSN to obtain a drivers license upon submission of a federal govt document attesting to the lack of a Soc.Sec. number or account for that person, at least the individual's own assertion without the federal documentation was insufficient the court noted that driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right nor a contract, and the state may impose reasonable conditions upon that privilege and someone too fastidious to meet those conditions would not obtain the privilege) Hershey v. Commonwealth Dept of Transportation (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1995) 669 A2d 517 app.den 544 Penn 664, 676 A2d 1202
ditto Kocher v. Bickley (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1999) 722 A2d 756 similarly (state can insist on SSN to obtain a drivers license and apparently not required to offer alternatives to someone with religious objections to having an SSN) McDonald v. Alabama Dept of Public Safety (Alab.Civ.App unpub 4/9/99) ditto Miller v. Reed (9th Cir 1999) 176 F3d 1202 (and quoting from Bowen v. Roy, 1986, 476 US 693, which upheld an AFDC requirement that welfare payments would not be paid for children whose parents did not provide the child's SSN, notwithstanding the parents' religious objections to SSNs, and without offering an alternative) requirement of SSN to obtain a drivers license did not infringe on religious rights, because the "plaintiffs may preserve their religious scruples intact by foregoing this privilege [of driving on the public roads]. It is for them to balance the resulting inconvenience." Penner v. King (Mo. 1985) 695 SW2d 887
I'm not fully informed on SSN's so I will pass this one accept to say,,,,,,, where is the compelling state interest when #5 above is a consideration?
similarly, "The state of Missouri, by making the licensing requirements in question, is not prohibiting Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs or from traveling throughout this land. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a bicycle or horse, or travel as a passenger in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter. He cannot, however, operate a moto vehicle on the public highways without ... a valid operator's license." State v. Davis (Mo.App 1988) 745 SW2d 249
There we go again with the carefully constructed "motor vehicle" language. One has to wonder if this court recognizes the difference between their definition of a motor vehicle and that of the states?
(on the other hand, some states have made provision for issuing drivers licenses in special circumstances in which an SSN is unavailable, such as lawfully admitted aliens, with their green cards, who are ineligible for Soc.Sec.) Lauderbach v. Zolin (Cal.App 1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 578, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 434
similarly (accepting the IRS's Taxpayer Identification Number [TIN] as a substitute for the SSN) Devon Inc. v. State Bureau (Ohio App 1986) 31 Ohio App.3d 130, 508 NE2d 984
ditto (state would accept TIN as a substitute for the SSN and not obliged to create any more alternatives) Kocher v. Bickley (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1999) 722 A2d 756
[the state may also give applicants the option of not having their SSNs appear on their drivers license and the public registry but may stil require the SSN on the applications. Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Mass.Super unpub 6/8/93) 1 Mass.L.Rptr 156, 21 Media L.Rptr 2041 and if the drivers license does not display the SSN, a policeman stopping the driver may insist on seeing the driver's Soc.Sec. card when the SSN is required on traffic citations. State v. T.N. Hill (Ohio App. unpub 2/6/92)]
 |
 |
|
|
neither right to migrate nor right to a job implies a right to unlicensed driving. Maher v. State (Ind.App 1993) 612 NE2d 1063
(ditto, when crank sent the state letters "rescinding his signature" to all drivers license papers assenting to the state's statutory consent to breathalyzer test this had the effect of cancelling his drivers license, and he was charged with unlicensed driving moreover, the state's refusal to return his car until he presented a valid license and registration was not a taking without due process) Maxfield v. Corwin (WD Mich unpub 3/17/87) {Note: There are reasons, other than dangerous driving, that a court may use to suspend or revoke drivers licenses e.g. non-payment of taxes
Wells v. Malloy (D Vt 1975) 402 F.Supp 856 aff'd 538 F2d 317 failure to pay court fines City of Milwaukee v. Kilgore (Wis.App 1994) 185 Wis.2d 499, 517 NW2d 689 failure to pay child support Richey v. Richey (La.App 1997) 704 So.2d 343 generally essay, Revocation or Suspension of Drivers License for Reason Unrelated to Motor Vehicle, 18 ALR5th 542 & suppl.
Another essay deals with putting conditions upon the reinstatement of a suspended license, such as requiring proof of financial responsibility. 2 ALR5th 725.} ("The right to travel on public highways is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, pursuant to the police power granted by the Constitution. We have previously held that the motor vehicle codes are a valid use of police power. We have also previously held that requiring automobile insurance coverage and the registration of vehicles is a valid use of the police power and does not violate the due process requirements of the US Constitution.") State v. R.E. Wilson (Mont.Supm unpub 12/3/98) {The references to the "right to travel" in this propaganda turn out to refer to court cases that dealt with restrictions on passports, or on restrictions on out-of-state visitors or newcomers to a state obtaining employment or benefits such as food stamps cf. G.B. Hartch, Wrong Turns: A critique of the Supreme Court's right to travel cases, 21 Wm. Mitchell Law Rev. 457 (1995). The exercise of state and municipal police powers to regulate and restrict traffic on public roads predates the automobile by at least a half-century, when bicycle riding was restricted to avoid frightening horses cf. R.D. Perry, The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law, 35 Amer. Business Law Jrnl 185 (1998). In France, the registration of automobiles goes back to 1893, before the first US automobile factory, and in the US, registration of cars dates back to 1901 and the licensing of drivers to 1916, and by the mid-1920s there were, in almost every state, age requirements and other limitations on who could be licensed to operate an automobile, even for personal use for example, see J. Simon, Driving Governmentality: Automobile accidents, insurance, and the challenge to social order in the inter-war years, 1919 to 1941, 4 Conn. Insur. Law Jrnl 521 (1998). As the US Supreme Court noted in 1915, "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens." Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610
See #3 above…….. this case clearly makes the distinction between "motor vehicles" (per fed definition) and private property.
and in 1927, "Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents." Hess v. Pawloski (1927) 274 US 352.
See #5 regulations above. The states are taking this case completely out of context. Notice the court said "promote" not mandate.
There is nothing in the cranks' reliance on a "right to travel" to try to exempt themselves from driver license and traffic laws that limits their theory to wheeled vehicles and they might eventually claim an unregulated right to pilot aircraft over cities! Courts have already held that driving without a license or registration is, by itself, indicative of reckless driving
see essay, 29 ALR2d 963 & suppl.} (enforcement of traffic laws is not governed by the UCC speed limits and their enforcement is not a violation of the "right to travel") Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1994) 881 SW2d 838
very cleverly worded …… see #'s 3 and 5 above.
ditto (UCC inapplicable to case involving driving unregistered vehicle) Gipson v. Callahan (WD Tex 1997) 18 F.Supp.2d 662 (state can require that vehicle be maintained with current inspection and registration stickers and tags) State v. Kuball (Minn.App unpub 8/15/89)
state can require that drivers carry a drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986) 224 Mont 84, 730 P2d 371 cert.den 481 US 1020
I suspect the entire case will provide a more specific statement here… as is,,,, this doesn't say anything as it does not carry necessary qualifications we see in other US decisions.
Nowlin v. Dept of Motor Vehicles (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 (state can require applicants for new or renewed license to provide their Soc.Sec numbers and refuse licenses until applicant obtains a Soc.Sec number) ditto Miller v. Reed (9th Cir 1999) 176 F3d 1202 ditto McDonald v. Alabama Dept of Public Safety (Alab.Civ.App unpub 4/9/99)
ditto Hersshey v. Commonwealth (Commonw.Ct of Penn 1996) 669 A2d 517 app.denied (Penn Supm unpub 6/4/96) 544 Pa 664, 676 A2d 1202
ditto (and also pretending that accepting a benefit from the state, in the form of a license, is against his religion) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839
ditto State v. Clifford (1990) 57 Wash.App 127, 787 P2d 571 review denied 114 Wash.2d 1025, 792 P2d 535 ditto State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ditto (claiming that his religious beliefs were against registering for a drivers lic) Schmidt v. Powell (IL App 1972) 4 IL.App.3d 34, 280 NE2d 236
ditto (and also pretending that violation of license and registration laws is a victimless crime) State v. Yoder (Ohio App unpub 6/7/95)
pretending? I see nothing in this page that would demonstrate just what manner of victim does exist in such crimes.
(police request that driver show them his license and registration and proof of insurance is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, the law requires a driver to keep these documents, and driver cannot insist on search warrant) State v. Reed (1984) 107 Ida 162, 686 P2d 842 (ditto, does not violate Fifth Amendment) Sherman v. Babbitt (9th Cir 1985) 772 F2d 1476 (ditto, does not violate First Amendment religious rights) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839
compelling state interest? Probable cause?
(as part of a justifiable traffic stop, the police can instruct the driver to step out of his car) Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 US 106 (thought that posting No Trespassing notices on his truck was a sufficient substitute for having license plates - and was surprised when the police had his truck towed away) Fenili v. Calif. Dept of Motor Vehicles (ND Cal unpub 6/16/98) (homemade license plate, saying "Freeman", not acceptable, and state may impound car until perp presents current and valid
license, registration, etc.) Maxfield v. Corwin (WD Mich unpub 3/17/87) (mere use of homemade license plates is indicative that car is not properly registered and is sufficient to justify police stop) Granse v. State (Minn.App unpub 7/1/97)
I recognize the problem to be in the judiciary and the legislature. As such, I see no need to educate every policeman about what is not correct about his state mandate. Always give the cop a break…. He really doesn't know any better.
State v. French (1994) 77 Haw 222, 883 P2d 644 (required to comply with license and traffic laws event though perp believes that Hawaii is still an independent kingdom, there is no federal legislation that overrides the state's authority to regulate driving) driving is a privilege not an inherent right and may be regulated by the state for public safety reasons: Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338
There's that word Regulate again……….
(driving not synonymous with "right to travel") Azubuko v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st Cir unpub 9/3/96) cert.den 520 US 1157 ditto City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010 similarly (including driver license laws and requirement for vehicle registration and insurance) Goode v. Foster (D. Kan unpub 10/21/96) ditto Gordon v. State (1985) 108 Ida 178, 697 P2d 1192 ditto State v. Von Schmidt (1985) 109 Ida 736, 710 P2d 646 ditto Endsley v. State (1987) 184 Ga.App 797, 363 SE2d 1 similarly Lebrun v. State (1986) 255 Ga 406, 339 SE2d 227 ditto Humphreys v. State (Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188 ditto State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 (privilege of operation a motor vehicle on the public streets is "wholly separate from the right to travel"
duh
perp refused to identify himself to police, tried to present policeman with his own version of "Miranda warning" claims to be immune to license & registration requirement as an "unenfranchised citizen of Tennessee", etc. held "No person in the State of Tennessee may exempt himself or herself from any law simply by declaring that he or she does not consent to its applying to them")
ditto State v. D.R. Gibson (1985) 108 Ida. 202, 697 P2d 1216 (perp claimed that as a "free man" who had not "accepted" a drivers license, he is exempt from all traffic laws) similarly Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839 similarly State v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 544 NW2d 158 similarly (including argument that his driving is not "commercial" or not connected to govt activity and therefore not susceptible to any state controls) State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ("That claim is baseless in Montana and we find no law in any other jurisdiction to support it either.") ditto (tried to argue that registration and licensing laws only apply if the vehicle is "for extraordinary use" "We see no reason why we should place any limitations on the application of the registration statute when the legislature decided not to.") Slye-Nelson v. State (Tex.App 1993) 862 SW2d 628
ditto ("completely frivolous and meritless") J.M. Anderson v. State of Michigan (WD Mich unpub 3/18/93) ditto City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010
ditto City of Belton v Horton (Mo.App 1997) 947 SW2d 104
I AM GETTING TIRED, AS MY LAST FEW COMMENTS SHOULD DEMONSTRATE… SO I WILL STOP HERE. I SEE NO BETTER CITES THAN THOSE I HAVE ALREADY CRITIQUED/DISPELLED IN THE FIRST 5 OR SO NUMBERS ABOVE…….
I will say, REGULATION (as defined above) is an appropriate use of state police powers, codes mandating the robbing citizens at gunpiont who have harmed no one is not.
Anyone,,,,,,,,, please feel free to provide compelling state interests in support of vehicle codes…….. that are not already covered in #5 above….
This state police power really can't work any other way than is described here. If it did, the bill of rights would not have been necessary……. Not to speak of the constitution itself……… and while we are enumerating the unnecessary,,,,, the war of independence comes to mind…… I wish the states would get their heads out of their pocket books and really try to provide for the health and welfare of the people………
wdd
ditto Humphreys v. State (Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188 ditto (claimed "it is a legal impossibility for the state or anyone to collect a civil penalty for non-registration of a private vehicle" and wanted $2.5M in damages "completely frivolous and meritless") J.M. Anderson v. State of Michigan (WD Mich unpub 3/18/93) ditto (also that this was a "victimless crime") City of South Euclid v. Carroll (Ohio App unpub 10/6/88) app.dism 42 Oh.St.3d 706, 537 NE2d 225 similarly (tried to argue that limiting driving to those able to afford car insurance was discriminatory) Maher v. State (Ind.App 1993) 612 NE2d 1063 ditto State v. J.S. Smith (Minn.App unpub 6/11/96) (tried to argue that he could not be required to pay a fine nor pay for a license nor for registration in the absence of gold and silver coiage) Lowry v. State (Alask.App 1982) 655 P2d 780
(tried to argue that a traffic ticket required the same tedious red tape, such as notarization or accompanying papers, as a formal indictment or a complaint in a lawsuit) State v. Gibson (Ohio App unpub 6/19/95) (seemed to think that by denying US citizenship could immunize himself from drunk driving laws and from traffic court) T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92)
ditto (as "a 'free' man who is no longer a 14th Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his vehicle, wear a seatbelt or maintain liability insurance, ... also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws.") State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 51 Mont St.Rep 1149, 885 P2d 426 ditto State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ditto (argued that his unregistered truck was not a vehicle but a "religious conveyance" and as a "natural citizen" rather than an enfranchised citizen he was exempt from licensing law) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839 ditto (also tried to argue that his unregistered automobile was not a "motor vehicle" unless and until it was registered) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953
similarly (altho alone in his truck, tried to deny that he was "driving a motor vehicle" but rather "traveling in a conveyance". "His reasoning for this premise ... is not based on any relevant statute or case precedent, and has no merit. [State law] defines an operator as a person ... 'who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.' ... Since Davis was in actual physical control of the pickup truck, he was operating a motor vehicle.") State v. Davis (Mo.App 1988) 745 SW2d 249
similarly (argued that traffic laws, even against driving the wrong way down a one-way street, violated the 10th Amendment ... and sent the traffic judge letters on the letterhead of "The Committee to Save the Judges from Hanging Even Though They Deserve It" with the printed marginalia that "oppressed people have never once regained their freedom until they had hung the judges and stoned the tax collectors to death." ) Freeman v. Town of Lusk (Wyo.Supm 1986) 717 P2d 331 similarly (awarded himself, as "a first class judicial citizen", a permanent lifetime "travelers authorization" ... "it also means that never again will he have to wait in line at the Dept of Motor Vehicles for a renewal") Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake (ND NY unpub 5/11/98) (an international driving permit is not, alone, a sufficient substitute for a drivers license, and requires additionally a drivers license from that person's country or state of residence) Schofield v. Hertz Corp. (1991) 201 Ga.App 830, 412 SE2d 853 Dwyer v. Margono (1997) 128 N.C.App 122, 493 SE2d 763 review den (1998) 347 NC 670, 500 SE2d 85 Eskew v. Young (SD IL 1998) 992 F.Supp 1049 someone whose drivers license had been deliberately suspended or revoked here cannot resume driving by obtaining an international drivers permit. People v. Platts (1995) 274 Ill.App.3d 753, 655 NE2d 300 where an arrestee has an international drivers permit in a false name that is a strong indication of an inclination and ability to flee and adopt false identities for which a high bail may be demanded. US v. Himler (3d Cir 1986) 797 F2d 156
having organized a small mob to resist law enforcement efforts to arrest him, having denied his citizenship and denied being susceptible to the laws or courts, and having threatened the judge, all justify the court refusing to allow him bail or pre-trial release. US v. Kanahele (D Haw 1995) 951 F.Supp 921
{The international driving permit is issued under the authority of the UN Convention on International Road Traffic, and it serves as an authoritative multi-lingual translation and verification of the person's home drivers license, which means that it has no legal weight without that home drivers license (and, also, a driver's international permit has no weight inside the driver's home country). It is good for not more than 12 months (less in some countries) and the driver is still subject to all the traffic laws. In the US, they are available from AAA for $10. [AAA wants a SS#.] Apparently there is a lively Internet scam of selling unauthorized or fake permits and at prices up to $300 cf.
Re: State Waiver of Drivers License
Posted by: "Patrick" paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net paradoxmagnus
Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:52 pm (PST)
It’s pretty sad that people are forced to try to get EXEMPTIONS to laws that SHOULDN’T be APPLIED to them.
While the following are CALIFORNIA specific, most likely it is the same in each state.
The VEHICLE CODES (1935 & 1959) were SIMPLY NON-SUBSTANTIVE (and highly DECEIPTFUL) RESTATEMENTS and CONTINUATIONS of the EXISTING STATUTES prior to 1935.
VC 2. The provisions of this code, insofar as they are
substantially the
same as existing provisions relating to the same subject matter, shall
be
construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new
enactments.
VC 4. No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes
effect, and
no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code, but all
procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the provisions of
this
code so far as possible.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000&file=1-32>
&group=00001-01000&file=1-32
The CURRENT VEHICLE CODE is the 1959 CODE as AMENDED.
This becomes apparent when you cross reference the HISTORICAL & STATUTORY NOTES in Westlaw’s ANNOTATED CODES with the VEHICLE CODE as it was ENACTED in 1959.
VC 250. A “chauffeur" is a person who is employed by another
for the
principal purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways and
receives
compensation therefor. Statutes of California 1959, Chapter 3, Vehicle
Code,
page 1530.
Historical and Statutory Notes
Addition of a section of this number by ß I of Stats.1992, c.
931
(A.B.3396), failed to become operative under the provisions of ß 5 of
that
Act.
Former ß 250, enacted by Stats.1959, c. 3, p. 1530, ß 250,
derived from
Veh.C.1935, ß 71 (Stats.1935, c. 27, p. 98) and from Stats.1905, c.612,
p.
816, ß 1; Stats.1913, c. 326, p. 639, ß 1; Stats.1915, c. 188, p. 397,
ß 1;
Stats.1917, c. 218, p. 382, ß I: Stats.1919, c. 147, p. 192, ß 1;
Stats.1923, c. 266, p. 519, ß 19; Stats.1927, c. 752, p. 1422, ß 4;
Stats.1929, c. 253, p. 509, ß 3, which defined chauffeur, was repealed
by
Stats.1961, c. 1615, ß 1.
VC 310. "Driver's License" includes both an operator's and a
chauffeur's
license. Statutes of California 1959, Chapter 3, Vehicle Code, page
1531.
VC 310. A "driver's license" is a valid license to drive the
type of motor
vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under
this
code or by a foreign jurisdiction.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000
&file=100-680>
&group=00001-01000&file=100-680
Stats.1959, c. 3, p.1531, ß 310. Amended by Stats.1961,
c.1615, p. 3453, ß
2; Stats.1963, c. 74, p. 700, ß 1; Stats.1971, c. 213, p. 279, ß 2,
operative May 3, 1972.)
Historical and Statutory Notes
Operative date of 1971 legislation, see ß 1.5 [Repealed].
Derivation: Veh.C.1935, ß 69.1, added by Stats.1957, c. 482, p. 1514, ß 1.
VC 450. An "operator" is a driver of a motor vehicle other
than a chauffeur.
Statutes of California 1959, Chapter 3, Vehicle Code, page.1535.
Historical and Statutory Notes
Former ß 450, enacted by Stats.1959, c. 3, p. 1535, ß 450,
derived from
Veh.C.1935, ß 70 (Stats.1935, c. 27); Stats.I923, c. 266, ß 18,
Stats.I919,
c. 147, ß I; Stats.1917, c. 218, ß 1; Stats.1915, c. 188, ß 1,
Stats.1913,
C. 326, ß 1, defining "operator", was repealed by Stats. 1961, c.
1615,p.
3453, ß I.
Of course they have PURPOSELY hid the fact that under the LAWS
that the
CURRENT VEHICLE CODE is a RESTATEMENT and CONTINUATION OF, most people
were
NOT “operators” and most “vehicles” were NOT “motor vehicles.”
STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA
Passed At The
REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FORTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE
1925
CHAPTER 412, pages 833-834
An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of
persons or property
for hire or compensation upon public streets, roadways and highways in
the
State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for certain
exemptions; to
provide for the enforcement of the provisions thereof and for the
disposition of the amounts collected on account of such licenses; to
make an
appropriation for the purpose of this act; and to repeal all acts or
parts
of acts in conflict herewith.
[ Approved by the Governor May 28, 1925. ]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1. The words and phrases used in this act shall for
the purposes
of this act, unless the same be contrary to or inconsistent with the
context, be construed as follows:
(a) The phrase "railroad commission certificate" shall be
construed to
mean a certificate of public convenience and necessity granted or
issued by
the railroad commission of the State of California, authorizing a common
carrier by motor vehicle to operate under the conditions prescribed by
said
commission, and shall include all amendments to or changes in such
certificate which may be made by said commission.
(b) The word "operator" shall include all persons, firms,
associations and
corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public highway in this
state and thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property
for
hire or compensation, but shall not include any person, firm,
association or
corporation who solely transports by motor vehicle persons to and from
or to
or from attendance upon any public school or who solely transports his
or
its own property, or employees, or both, and who transports no persons
or
property for hire or compensation, but all persons operating freight
carrying so exempted shall be required to obtain from the state board of
equalization and to display exempt emblems in the manner herein
provided.
(c) The term "registration certificate" shall include any and
all
certificates of registration of a motor vehicle issued by the division
of
motor vehicles of the department of finance of the State of California,
or
by any governmental body within said state under which the laws of the
said
state may have power or authority to register and certify to the
registration of a motor vehicle for operation within said state.
(d) The word “motor vehicle” shall mean and include all
vehicles,
automobiles, trucks or trailers operated upon or over public highways of
this state whether the same be propelled or operated by steam or
electricity, or propelled or operated by combustion of gasoline,
distillate
or other volatile and inflammable fuels.
(rest omitted)
9603. “Operator” includes:
(a) Any person engaging in the transportation of persons or property for
hire or compensation by or upon a motor vehicle upon any public highway
in
this State, either directly or indirectly.
(b) Any person who furnishes any motor vehicle for the transportation of
persons or property under a lease or rental agreement when pursuant to
the
terms thereof the person operates the motor vehicle furnished or
exercises
any control of, or assumes any responsibility for, or engages either in
whole or in part in, the transportation of persons or property in the
motor
vehicle furnished.
“Operator” does not include any of the following:
(a) Any person transporting his own property in a motor vehicle owned or
operated by him unless he makes a specific charge for the
transportation.
This subdivision does not in any way limit any other exemption granted
by
this section.
(b) Any farmer . . .
(c) Any nonprofit . . .
(d) Any person . . transports . . school . .
(e) Any person . . . hearse . . .
(f) Any registered owner of a pleasure vehicle who, while operating the
vehicle, transports persons to his work, or to a place through which he
passes on the way to his work, whether for or without compensation, if
he is
not in the business of furnishing such transportation. STATUTES OF
CALIFORNIA 1941, California Revenue & Taxation Code, Chapter
39, pg 590
9605. “Motor vehicle” includes any automobile, truck, tractor,
or other
self-propelled vehicle used for the transportation of persons or
property
upon the public highways, otherwise than upon fixed rails or tracks,
and any
trailer, semi-trailer, dolly, or other vehicle drawn thereby, not exempt
from registration fees under the laws of this State. STATUTES OF
CALIFORNIA
1941, California Revenue & Taxation Code, Chapter 39, pg 591
10751. A license fee is hereby imposed for the privilege of
operating upon
the public highways in this State any vehicle of a type subject to
registration under the Vehicle Code. STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA 1941,
California Revenue & Taxation Code, Chapter 40, pg. 605
And it should be NOTED that according to the notes for VC 460
which defines
“owner”, it states that “Stats.1963, c. 819, p. 1849, amending this
section,
enacted the Uniform Commercial Code to become effective January 1, 1965,
except as to certain contracts validly entered into before the effective
date of the act and to the rights, duties and interests flowing
therefrom
(Commercial Code ßß 10101, 10102).”
Patrick in California
"Machiavelli would be PROUD, Houdini would be AMAZED and Mark
Twain would
say "I told you so."--PKM
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email
to:
<mailto:tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
