Jump to content
NOJURISDICTION

Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

Recommended Posts

   You can not convert a Constitutional Right to travel into a crime. Miller  v. U.S., 230 F.2d.488; Murdock v. Pennsylvainia, 319 US 105,(1943).

   Common tenancy of the public roads. No license is required for a tenant in common to use the property. Legislature has no right to dissolve our tenancy. Traveling on the roads & highways has always been free to all.

   In Hurtado v. California (1884)110 US 516, The U.S. Supreme Court states very plainly, "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." The California Supreme Court has held placing statutes in code does not change their meaning or effect. The original intent of the Statutes in California, was that it applied only to commercial activities or to statutory residents, and all others wer exempt from the regulations. In re Stork,(1914) 167 Cal.294,139 P. 684, (This case has not been overturned!)

 

   I should like some input on the issue is there any statute of law that the State or government can force a citizen to pledge there private personal property vehicle to the Department of motor vehicles without just considerations or benefit? You already have the benefit and right to travel without a "privilege driver's license". Example:Can the State force a citizen upon the purchase of a pair of shoes used on public roads to register and obtain a privilege license to operate their shoes? A car is personal property, like a pair of shoes used on public roads/highways where no license or registration is required. Please give me some response. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said THAT, I meant what # is it, I know what the word quota means.

 

10 tickets a week, 20, give me facts.

 

The number would vary from department to department and from time time as such numbers seldom persist forever.  Are you inquiring about a specific department and or time frame or are you just implying indirectly that the claim that police departmentshave ticket quotas is BS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number would vary from department to department and from time time as such numbers seldom persist forever.  Are you inquiring about a specific department and or time frame or are you just implying indirectly that the claim that police departmentshave ticket quotas is BS?

 

You said, "police officers in all major cities and in most suburban areas have ticket quotas."

 

I don't know what you consider to be a "major city," but let's start with the 10 most populous U.S. cities:  New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose.  Please advise what are the ticket quotas for those cities and provide a verifiable source for the information (and, if you want to limit it to a particular time frame, that would be fine).  Or, if you don't know any specific quotas, please provide verifiable sources for the proposition that any actual quota exists currently.  I'm also curious about the factual basis for your claim that "most suburban areas have ticket quotas."  I find it impossible to believe that you have any knowledge whatsoever about what goes on in "most" (which, for present purposes, I'll define as 50% +1) suburban areas in the 50 U.S. states.

 

After all, you're the one who made the statement, so it hardly seems unreasonable to ask you to back it up with verifiable facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already have the benefit and right to travel without a "privilege driver's license"

 

Actually, you don't have that right, as has been explained here before. The cases you cited have nothing to do with driver’s licenses and thus aren’t even close to on point. You've made the classic error of taking a sentence or two from a case that has nothing to do with the issue at hand but that sounds good and then arguing that makes your case. My legal research professors would have given that effort an “F” grade, and with good reason. When you look at the cases in which the issue of whether the state may require a driver’s license is squarely presented, however, what you find is that the courts uniformly say yes, the state may indeed require that. I find it humorous, at the very least, that those who want to argue that no license is required strain  to find support in cases that have nothing to do with driver’s licenses but ignore the cases that do as though they don’t exist. That kind of reasoning doesn't impress the courts because it’s faulty. 

 

 

Example:Can the State force a citizen upon the purchase of a pair of shoes used on public roads to register and obtain a privilege license to operate their shoes? A car is personal property, like a pair of shoes used on public roads/highways where no license or registration is required. Please give me some response. Thanks

 

Potentially, yes. While it might be silly for the state to do that, the legality of the act doesn’t turn on whether it is silly. Bicycles are personal property, too, and my city requires that all bikes used on the roads be registered with the city. I have no doubt that the law would pass a constitutional challenge. Same would be true with shoes, depending on exactly how the law requiring registration of them read. Note that just because the state or local government chooses not to require registration of some personal property, like bikes, skateboards, shoes, or whatever, does not mean that the state lacks the power to require registration of cars. Nothing in the law requires the state to use all the power that it has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me I didn't read the entire thread thoroughly... but it would seem to me that government is not demanding that people have a license to use the roads, they are demanding that people have a license to operate a motor vehicle*

 

 

At the time the constitution was written, of course it was no doubt their intention to reiterate the freedom for people to use the roads.. most likely to address toll keepers and things of that sort that most likely still existed in Europe. 

 

Technology that is developed later, i.e. motorized vehicles would understandably require new regulation to protect the people.  I don't see how requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle has anything to do with requiring a license to use the roads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty one must consider what the legal definition of a driver is and what is the purpose of any " license" with that information one can easily discern the intentions of the government to regulate "commerce" not the human beings. having a "license" puts one in the fictional realm in which this system operates. Legal fiction is a real term and has major implications to those who are not legally astute. No the quoted cases do not directly deal with this issue as the States have used it as a revenue scheme to get humans to agree to a :license" without full disclosure of what Rights they are giving up in order to gain a "privilege" which can be regulated. Remember there are two types of citizens in these united States of America, State Citizens and Federal citizen via the 14th Amendment. If you are the latter you MUST  use the privilege you have agreed to. You cannot claim a right you have given away.

There is case law supporting a right to travel but you must go back when common law was in use. The statutory laws will not assist you in this endeavor but Georgia had a House Bill 7 that basically would secure the right to travel as they know that the laws ARE taking away a right without full disclosure of the existence of said right but that is not their job to inform the public.

The use of terminology will assist you in finding a way out of the system, there are ways to say you travel by a preferred form of conveyance. No  in the days of the Constitution they used horses and carriages but still had drivers for hire. It is illegal for one to profit off of the public roads with out the proper permission which is a drivers license, hence the names bus drive, taxicab driver, truck driver, etc...

Once again it is imperative to look up the LEGAL definition of a DRIVER to see if you all the elements of that title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a cartoon I created describing my court battles hope you all enjoy.  

 

I've been reading these posts and I have to chime in here.  This is a subject i've been studying for a very long time.  Here how it breaks down.

 

I'm going to use California law because that's what I'm familiar with.

 

You do not have a right to drive a motor vehicle because driving a motor vehicle is a privilege.

 

The various vehicle codes are regulating the privileged activity of using the highways. 

 

The nature of the privilege is in relation to commerce. 

 

This can be found by simply reading the California Codes annotated under 12500(a) driving without a license.  If you read the notes unde 1. In General it reads: 

 

"Occupation of chauffeur is one calling for regulation and permitting regulatory license fee, under rule that when calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then the legislature properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise. In re Application of Stork (1914) 167 Cal 294, 139 p. 684. 

 

This case was dealing with the very first Act requiring drivers licenses and registration which was passed in 1913 and went into effect in 1914.  If you read section 17 of the act it defines a "person" as a corporation, copartnership, cooperation, firm, association or any other aggregation of individuals.  

 

So right from the get go the law only referred to ficticious entities.  

 

Several people came to the courts and challenged these licenseing laws by stating they have a right to drive but remember these defendants are people using the highways to transport persons and property for hire.  They were arguing their right to drive and the courts correctly shot them down stating the driving is a privilege and the courts are right.  

 

This went on all the way until 1923 chapter 266 with the California vehicle act.  This is the law the language of person was made more general and appeared to apply to everyone, but the truth is the legislature adopted the term privilege as it relates to licensing and registration since all the case law that was built up, up until that time. So my using the term privilege within the act it re-constrained the application of the law to those who again, transporting persons and property for hire.  

 

Then in 1923 there was the Motor Vehicle license tax act and the Supreme Court of california ruled this tax constitutional but exempted all those that do not transport person and property for hire from the tax.  

 

This is also important "The term drive as used in the Vehicle Act of 1923 section 58 was not synomymous with operate.  Lundquist v. Lundstrom 1928 94 cal app 109

 

Another similar clue can be found in section 260(a) which defines commercial vehicle as a Motor Vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code and used for the transportation of persons or property for hire.  (Now it's important to note that the particular definition of motor vehicle being mentioned in this section does not refer to motor vehicles such as semi's etc.)  

 

Now this law begs the questions, where in this code is this commercial motor vehicle required to be registered?  This takes us to the registration provision of 4000(a)(1) which is the section in question.  

 

Remember we are talking about a vehicle code that is regulating the "privilege" activity of using the highways and the registration applies to those who are exercising that privilege so it looks like 260(a) is qualifying section 4000(a) to being limited to only those type of vehicles.  Therefore registration wouldn't apply to someones own personal car.

 

Another clue is the DMV's website itself under Registration fees.  There is a specific fee listed that is required for all registered motor vehicles.  It's called the Vehicle License Fee and can be found in Revenue and Taxation code section 107501 but when you read about this particular law within the annotated codes it provides that the legislative intent was to exact a fee for those that use the highways in an occupational capacity.

 

Now with all this said I keep seeing people say things like "you have the right to travel but you don't have the right drive a car" Even the courts are saying things like this.  

 

Here is the problem I have with this.  

 

There are several maxims of law that are being violated with this particular logic.  

 

1. The exercise of a right cannot be predicated upon the exercise of a privilege. 

 

How can it be said that I can exercise my right to travel or use the highways by taking public transportation.  Doesn't this require someone else to engage in the privilege?  What about the locations that don't have or have inadaquate public transportation.? 

 

How can it be said that I can have someone take me where I need to go like a family member or a friend .  Again we run into the same problem.  It requires someone else to engage in the privilege just so that I can exercise my right.  

 

There are some might say Ok you can walk.  How does this work if I have carry things that are to numerous for walking.  I do photography and like to shoot pictures in the canyons.  I have a camera bag, c-stands, lighting, strobe packs, and lenses, I can't carry all of these things.  So I actually need a car or some other type of vehicle to carry it.  

 

Another maxim of law it violates is 

 

2. Quad per me non possum nec per allium; That which I cannot do myself I cannot do through another.  

 

If I can't exercise the right myself then I certainly can't require someone else to do it for me.

 

3.  The power which is derived cannot be greater than from which it is derived.  

 

I don't have the power to force people to get my permission to use their own property like their car or to use the highways.  Therefore I cannot delegate to the government a power I myself don't have.  I do however have the right to keep someone from using the highways as a place of business since that would an extraordinary use of the highways and they are built and maintained for our use for travel purposes.  

 

I could go on and on but it seems pretty obvious to me the limited power of the state as it relates to this issue.    Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitutional "right to travel" on public highways and roadways only applies to means of transportation or conveyance (walking, horseback, horsewagon, oxcart, sedan chair, etc.) that the founding fathers were familiar with at the time of enactment of the Consititution. Just ask Justice Scalia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but you shouldn't need to be a lawyer or to spend hours looking up obscure references to prove that you have a right.

Either you have a right or you don't. If there is a "law" or statute stating that you have that right, it isn't granting it TO you. It's only PROTECTING that right which you already have.

If rights are things we have ONLY by virtue of them being written down as "law" or whatever, then we are indeed in a very scary place.

From my perspective, operating a motor vehicle is a responsibility, since every individual is always liable for damages to others or their property, under what some would call "Common Law". Therefore, obtaining some kind of permit proving that you have the required training to operate a motor vehicle should be something to protect YOURSELF in the event of an accident. 

As it stands now, we have a nanny state (some would call a police state) profiteering off of people's licencing and registration, and the ABSURD amount of traffic and parking tickets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rights are things we have ONLY by virtue of them being written down as "law" or whatever, then we are indeed in a very scary place.

 

You may find that “scary,” but that is exactly the case: all the legal rights we have are written down someplace: the federal and state constitutions, federal and state statutes, court decisions, etc. Any of them may be taken away, changed, enlarged, or added to by going through the appropriate process. For example, our right to free speech exists because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions in many state constitutions. The right to free speech could be taken away completely simply by amending the federal and state consitutions to remove the guarantee of free speech that they provide. The process to do that for the federal constitution is difficult enough that it hopefully will never happen. But it certainly could happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to walk down a highway all you want...that's travelling.  However if you wish to perform the extra dangerous activity of driving nearly a ton of metal and plastic and rubber on a public highway you must be licensed and insured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore despite the popular myth to the contrary, police do not have 'quotas' for tickets...I am sure the police sergeants  motivate the officers to get out there and ticket more people because violations of traffic laws are damn near ubiquitous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore despite the popular myth to the contrary, police do not have 'quotas' for tickets.

 

Stated in absolute terms like this, I doubt this statement is any more true than "NeverForget1776's" assertion that "police officers in all major cities and in most suburban areas have ticket quotas."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ticket quotas are illegal in every state and therefore police precincts do not use them.  The only thing the sergeants can do it so yell at the lazier officers that are not ticketing enough (since traffic violations are so ubiquitous that any traffic officer could ticket 9 out of 10 drivers by watching them for less than 5 minutes).  But requiring a certain number of tickets per shift or per week is illegal and it is not done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's not done.  Just as I doubt "NeverForget1776's" assertion, I also doubt that there isn't a single police department in any of the x-tens or hundreds of thousands of municipalities in the 50 states that has a quota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that I'm reading older posts, but I ran across this site while researching constitutional rights. To the one's posting in favor of state legislature, it doesn't take half a brain to understand plain English. Constitutional and common law rights are what they are. The right to travel by automobile may not be a specific item in the law, but it does not exclude it either. If you think it's okay for a state to make laws to diminish or take away the rights of the citizens, then maybe you don't belong in this country. If you like being controlled like that, fine go live in China. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you think it's okay for a state to make laws to diminish or take away the rights of the citizens, then maybe you don't belong in this country. If you like being controlled like that, fine go live in China. 

 

So, you think that everyone who disagrees with you ought to get the hell out of the U.S.? You don't think the U.S. was founded on the idea of free speech and the concept that debating our different views is a good thing? Instead, it’s your way or the highway, as the expression goes?

 

I stand by what I said before: nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from requiring a license to drive on the roads of that state. The case law on that is very clear. What I think the law should be isn’t the issue. The law is what it is. You are free, of course, to lobbby the state legislature to eliminate the requirement for a license. But you won’t succeed in court arguing that the state lacks the power to enact a licensing statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the one's posting in favor of state legislature, it doesn't take half a brain to understand plain English. 

 

Or to use apostrophes correctly, apparently.

 

 

 

Constitutional and common law rights are what they are.

 

Thanks for clarifying that X = X.

 

 

 

The right to travel by automobile may not be a specific item in the law, but it does not exclude it either.

 

I'm guessing that the second "it" in this sentence refers to the purported "right to travel by automobile," but I can't tell what the first "it" refers to.  What I do know is that the law in every state precludes any valid argument that a "right to travel by automobile" exists.

 

 

 

If you think it's okay for a state to make laws to diminish or take away the rights of the citizens, then maybe you don't belong in this country.

 

Maybe.  However, you probably should consider that most of the so-called "founding fathers" had relatively little problem with diminishing or taking away the rights of pretty much anyone who wasn't a caucasian, protestant, land-owning male.

 

 

 

If you like being controlled like that, fine go live in China. 

 

What a great, well-reasoned argument you have made here.  Let me make sure I understand you correct.  Anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of a right that no court in the history of this country has ever recognized should live in a country that is generally regarded as one of the worst when it comes to human rights?  I really fail to see the logic here, so I think I'll decline your very generous offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all very incorrect you need no license to travel in the united states under your US constitutional right to travel you are only required to have a drivers license or in other words surender your right to travel to abide by DMV guide lines if you are employed by a company or driving for a reason related to commerse. If you are traveling for a matter of personal buissness in your private vehicle you are not required to have a drivers license of plates. You only submitt to DMV regulations once you surrender your right to travel. It is your constitutional right to move freely throughout the US.

Theres also a page you can check out and download have it signed by your local court house so you dont run in to any further problems

http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all very incorrect you need no license to travel in the united states under your US constitutional right to travel you are only required to have a drivers license or in other words surender your right to travel to abide by DMV guide lines if you are employed by a company or driving for a reason related to commerse.

 

Do you have any good case law that specifically says that? The question is largely rhetorical, as I know the answer is no. The case law instead firmly holds that states may require ALL persons using the roads to have driver's license and register their vehicles. The 7th Circuit recently rejected the argument that the right to travel means the state cannot require a license, saying:

 

When you look the cases in which the specific issue was whether the "right to travel" is violated by driver's licensing laws, the uniform opinion of the courts is that they do not. For example, the 7th Circuit said recently:
 
But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.
 
Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).
 
Try using that form you suggested and all that will happen is the judge will get a good laugh as he or she finds you guilty of driving without a license. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

 

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe

conduct."

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

 

"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

 

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe

conduct."

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

 

"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

May I suggest you go back and read all three pages of this thread? Taht quote and your issue have been responded to both by adherents and lawyers who actually can point out the real case law that applies. The problem is that you think the right to travel is unlimited and encompasses all modes of travel, and cannot be infringed or regulated in any way. No right not even the most protected in the Constitution is absolute and subject to no kind of regulation or limitation whatever. The First Amendmend for example does not encompass libel, nor speech that imminently endangers others.

 

The following was posted by others on this thread, and portions are posted for the first time by me.

 

" Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (Va. 09/12/1930).  The holding also doesn't remotely support the argument it's being used for...  The case involved the city having an ordinance which gave the chief of police the power to revoke a person's permit to drive in that city.  Mr. Thompson had the required permit to drive his car and police chief, Smith, revoked it under a provision in the city code that gave him basically the unfettered discretion to do so. 

 

With regard to the right of the government to require licensing or permits to drive, what the Virginia Supreme Court held was "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."  At 378. "

 

and then 7th Circuit said recently:

But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.

Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).

 

and 9th circuit:

In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place.   The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.   See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979);  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).

====

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

....[continued, out of order]

  The Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to interstate travel. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986) (Brennan, J., plurality opinion).   Burdens placed on travel generally, such as gasoline taxes, or minor burdens impacting interstate travel, such as toll roads, do not constitute a violation of that right, however.   See Kansas v. United States, 16 F.3d 436, 442 (D.C.Cir.1994) 

We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel.  See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose to drive a limousine;  a poor man may have to walk.   The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional. ”);  City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel.   That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as already discussed in this forum, Police Officers DO NOT have quotas because they are unconstitutional.  There might be some precincts that violate this rule, but in general they do not because such practices are monitored to prevent liability for such a known unacceptable practice.

 

The heads of certain precincts can tell the officer to go out there and ticket more in general, but cannot reduce it to a numbers game.  And that is perfectly fine because traffic violations are so ubiquitous that it can count as reasonable suspicion if a driver is driving in a perfectly legal manner.  Police NEED to issue more traffic citations because so few people actually follow traffic laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can tell you how to travel on the public roads without major problems: have in your possession a valid driver's license, ensure the vehicle is properly insured, and follow the state and local traffic laws.

The right to travel does not mean that you may drive a vehicle on a public road without a valid driver's licenses. Those web site that assert otherwise are giving you bad information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a proall attorney. Taveling

Driving on american roads is a right.if stop sign ticket without prediudice. Courts will not except this a throw ticket out ucc code is a contract opt out of it by signing a reservation of rights all other responses here are from attorneys .they know the law but will not follow it. Any question for free help . ryoufin@aol.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...