The Washington State Supreme Court listens to oral arguments in March in the case of Stephen C. Johnson. / Courtesy image from TVW
By Sharyn L. Decker
Lewis County Sirens news reporter
CHEHALIS – A Lewis County case which could have eliminated an enormous part of the state’s system of driver’s license suspension has ended without that result.
In a five to four decision, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a Lewis County man’s conviction for driving while license suspended in the third degree.
The court declined to address Stephen C. Johnson’s attorneys’ claim of “driving while poor” concluding Johnson wasn’t poor enough in the right way to have standing to make the challenge.
However, the nine justices did decide Johnson was poor enough he should have been entitled to appointed counsel for his appeal. The case was remanded to Lewis County District Court to address that issue.
The case was argued to the Supreme Court last March by Olympia attorney Kevin Hochhalter and Lewis County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Shane O’Rourke. It’s opinion was issued on Thursday.
Johnson appealed the conviction on two grounds, first, his attorneys argued the DWLS 3rd statute did not actually forbid his continued driving, in his particular case, after he contested and lost his 2007 civil infraction for driving with an expired license.
He was fined $260, he did not pay and the court notified the state Department of Licensing he failed to pay, so they suspended his license. His arrest for DWLS 3rd – a criminal misdemeanor – came in September 2008 when a Lewis County sheriff’s deputy spotted his truck driving without a rear bumper or mud flaps and pulled him over.
Johnson contended that because the notice of infraction did not expressly require him to pay a fine, he had not violated its terms. The majority of the court disagreed with him.
In a nine-page dissent authored by Justice Charles K. Wiggins, he and the remaining members of the court however, sided with Johnson’s lawyers on that point.
On the second aspect of Johnson’s appeal, his lawyers argued that because he is indigent, the suspension was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment to to the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.
But that argument, that the state or the court should have but didn’t inquire about his ability to pay the $260 infraction – before sending off notice to DOL – simply did not get examined by the Supreme Court.
The Lewis County man may be poor, but he had assets, according to the court.
In the record was his testimony he had no income and had not worked for 30 years, but owned a $300,000 home free and clear.
The court said Johnson could have borrowed money to pay the original traffic fine.
Since he didn’t meet the necessary definition for indigence, the full court agreed, he didn’t have standing to challenge the suspension on that basis.
Finally, however, for the purposes of qualifying for a court-appointed lawyer for his appeal, Johnson should have been found indigent, the court said.
Under Washington state statute he met its requirements in that he received state aid in the form of food stamps and energy assistance, the court wrote.
The Supreme Court ordered Lewis County District Court to enter an order designating Johnson indigent, or indigent and able to contribute, and if the latter, then determine the costs he should bear for his appeal.
•••
For background, read the decision here.
Watch and listen to appeals attorney Kevin Hochhalter and Lewis County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Shane O’Rourke address the court in March, here
Tags: By Sharyn L. Decker, news reporter
Feel better now?
All of you screaming that he lives in a 300k house free and clear are unbelievable.
I suspect some jealousy. A person inherits a home and only a home, does not mean he has money! And you can’t take out a loan if you have zero credit! JESUS!
This Country will give handouts but won’t give the most qualified person a job because they don’t have a drivers license. And nobody sees anything wrong with that?
This “loser” as you call him. Probably inherited his house. Just because you live in a house doesn’t equal wealth.
This is a matter of principle. And the constitution is totally ignored.
Lewis County Washington and its DWLS Laws are pure unadulterated cash grab garbage.
We have no choice but to drive. The cops harass and collect from us but when we drive to work we’re arrested and fined even more.
DRIVING FOR TRAVELING PURPOSES REQUIRES NO LICENSE NO INSURANCE NO REGISTRATION in America. Only driving a car for the purposes of making money is illegal without the aforementioned.
Screwus County is horrifyingly dead set on harassing and collecting from low-mid class and should be ashamed.
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point — that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.”
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
Drivers License is a Contract
between you and the Motor Vehicle Department
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 appellants 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 dont 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 citizens constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that … every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operators 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. Wisdens 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. Wisdens 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 dont 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 plaintiffs 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 fathers 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 individuals 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 childs 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
Im not fully informed on SSNs 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 operators 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 IRSs 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 drivers 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 states statutory consent to breathalyzer test this had the effect of cancelling his drivers license, and he was charged with unlicensed driving moreover, the states 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 affd 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 Courts 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 states 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 states 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
Theres 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 cant 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 persons 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 persons home drivers license, which means that it has no legal weight without that home drivers license (and, also, a drivers international permit has no weight inside the drivers 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.
USA Today, 5 March 1999
Business Wire, 20 Jan 1999
Toronto Star, 5 Sept 1998
You people miss the point, and dont realize that you just got screwed. Maybe this man was not the best example, but the issue he was fighting for, affects thousands of Americans. It is the deliberate breakdown of the system, in my state the DMV will supposedly send out 5 regular mail notices before you are suspended, yet if you do not receive them (mail theft is big round the holidays) there is no legal recourse. 5 notices, when 1 certified, signed for, notice would suffice, and should be required regarding all legal and court correspondence. If they at least would do this the loophole for the worst abuse would stop.
I challenged a Ticket, court said they would mail their decision, none received, but I was decided against. Not knowing I had a fine to pay, license suspended, again no notice. Its a small town, I see the cop whose ticket I challenged all the time following me, running my plates, never told me I was suspended on over a dozen occasions he could have, and I would have taken care of it. No he wanted to catch me driving for that ticket quota.
I had a spotless record before, the surprise suspension, cost me getting a job with the State Police IT dept I had interviewed for (Yes my record was that clean). Now I cant even get a job, without a license, and even after I get everything cleared, my record will not be clean enough to get a job with the state i fear. I am not on public assistance and never have been, but now soon will be, mostly because of these events. I really cant expect I will find a job before getting my license back and its taking all of the savings I have to get it reinstated. I worked solid for 20 Years right out of High School, only got 6 months unemployment after my job was given to cheap foreign sub-contractors.
All starting with Tags that the DMV sold me only good for 1 year, when all Tags here last 2 years, but when you bring that up they say its your fault for not correcting it, when in fact the DMV will NOT fix a Tag problem, they make you buy new plates, or wait for the Tags to expire, to buy new ones. When I tried to correct this at the DMV, I was treated like a criminal, and they would not provide copies of prior transactions or do anything that would document or indicate their mistake.
But no, complain about this guys foodstamps and house while, the police (from any state) can levy fines, get your license suspended (in your state), get your car impounded (if they wants it), foreclose on your house, and confiscate your money, property and possessions (with a bogus drug seizure), and all without your knowledge until its too late, because they don’t have to serve you any notice.
“nothing illegal about ripping off taxpayers” if it wasn’t illegal the politicians wouldn’t get away with it….
Larry Butler Fan you are the one who needs to get his facts straight. It is indeed illegal to “rip off” or steal from taxpayers. It’s leaches like you that suck up the tax dollars.
No, there’s nothing illegal about ripping off taxpayers. It doesn’t matter if your the little guy or the big corporation.
Get your facts straight.
Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right.
How much welfare have you stolen lately?
So it’s right for individuals to rip off taxpayers because corporations do it? Thanks for the civics lesson.
This guy is no different any other free-loading welfare corporation. You guys bitch a moan about this guy stealing food stamp money while you remain completely silent when 1,000’s of x’s more welfare is being doled out to people even more worthless than him!!!
This guy’s been gaming the system for three decades and now he wanted the State Supreme Court to give him a freebie on a $260 ticket he EARNED by driving without insurance? And taxpayers are footing the bill for his attorney? I hope District Court hammers him but good.
This freeloader should sell his $300K piece of property, rent an apartment and start taking care of himself like a real grown-up is supposed to. He won’t, of course, because we live in a country where too many people prefer avoiding the expectation of personal accountability and responsibility from parasites like him because it might hurt his feelings.
BleeBloo – I am in total agreement with you. He should not be able to live off the backs of the taxpayer when he owns a $300K piece of property free and clear. I would think that the income required to pay the property taxes and upkeep ALONE would exclude him from eligibility for food stamps. I wonder if some kind of fraud was committed, or if the state even looked into this? The same thing goes for an attorney. Why should the taxpayers pay for it? Make him take out a loan on the property and pay for his own fucking lawyer. If he had to do that, I bet this lowlife wouldn’t have been so quick to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. And he hasn’t worked in thirty years? He obviously needs a job. The he wouldn’t have the time to waste going to court over bullshit like this.
why is this loser getting food stamps if he owns his own house? take out a reverse mortgage or get an equity loan or go back to work.
tax dollors hard at work