Jump to content
Roxy11

driving without a license

Recommended Posts

My friend got pulled over yesterday for driving without a license, he has gotten caught 11 times but the last time was in 2011. The cop said he could get an $1000 fine and up to 60 days in jail. This happened in Pennsylvania im really hoping for the best but does anybody have any ideas of what might happen to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Query what you think "the best" is.

 

Obviously your friend doesn't get it and thinks it's ok to give a big old middle finger to the laws that most folks observe without pause.  After 11 priors, I would hope he'd spend some time in jail.  I would also hope whatever car he was driving was impounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No traffic court has any jurisdiction on a persons liberty....if at the time he was pulled over he wasn't for hire or on the clock than he was well within his rights to travel freely. He doesn't need a license to be liberated or free. In fact he will then become a slave to the state if he gets a license. By getting a license he signs a contract with the state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No traffic court has any jurisdiction on a persons liberty....if at the time he was pulled over he wasn't for hire or on the clock than he was well within his rights to travel freely. He doesn't need a license to be liberated or free. In fact he will then become a slave to the state if he gets a license. By getting a license he signs a contract with the state

 

A very mistaken view of the law. Every state, including Pennsylvania, requires all persons who operate a vehicle on the roads to have a driver's license — not just those that are for hire like a taxicab. Driver's licenses are not contracts. Moreover, unlike the claims of some, nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from requiring a license to drive. The case law is quite clear on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No traffic court has any jurisdiction on a persons liberty.

 

As phrased, this statement makes relatively little sense.

 

 

 

if at the time he was pulled over he wasn't for hire or on the clock than he was well within his rights to travel freely.

 

I suppose the validity of this statement depends on how you look at it.  You've now changed the issue from driving without a license to "travel[ling] freely."  Of course, even if he was "for hire or on the clock," no law constrained his ability to "travel freely."  Of course, that's not the issue.  The issue was whether he could legally drive without a license and, of course, he could not.

 

 

 

He doesn't need a license to be liberated or free.

 

Absolutely correct but completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

 

 

In fact he will then become a slave to the state if he gets a license.

 

This statement is nothing but hyperbole.  You are, of course, free to take that view if you like, but it obviously isn't literally correct.

 

 

 

By getting a license he signs a contract with the state

 

Even if one takes this view (e.g., the terms of the contract are that the state will issue a license in exchange for the driver's promise to abide by traffic laws etc. -- of course, that's a flawed view of the law of contracts), so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother in law was pulled over and takin to jail for driving while license suspended. He later found that his license was infact not suspended and that the charge was either made due to someone trying to  set him up, or it was a mistake and no action was takin to correct the issue. Later while in the jail facility he was charged with some very harsh and serious charges that too didnt apply. From the beginning of this ordeal w/ pull over and arrest through to the next mysterious charge what exactly can he do to defend himself, being that he wasnt doing anything illegal i the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the beginning of this ordeal w/ pull over and arrest through to the next mysterious charge what exactly can he do to defend himself, being that he wasnt doing anything illegal i the first place?

 

The place to start is the DMV records that the cops used. Did they show his license to be suspended or revoked? If so, the cops may rely upon that in making the arrest, even if it turns out the DMV was wrong. If he is still facing prosecution on this charge, he may want to see an attorney for help in contesting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No traffic court has any jurisdiction on a persons liberty....if at the time he was pulled over he wasn't for hire or on the clock than he was well within his rights to travel freely. He doesn't need a license to be liberated or free. In fact he will then become a slave to the state if he gets a license. By getting a license he signs a contract with the state

 

Right to drive?

 

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 at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  

Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (Va. 09/12/1930). 

 

The holding doesn't remotely support the argument it's being used for (which is no surprise).  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. 

 

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

Miller v Reed

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).

....[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

Philip, I trust you realize that this is a quite old thread, and that there's dubious benefit in responding so comprehensively to a miscellaneous poster like commoncitizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out that the government can not grant rights and their powers are enumerated which means anything not enumerated to them is not under their authority.

 Government was intended to be limited , it has and is ever expanding with no end in sight , which also requires more funding from us. 

Government never cuts costs only creates them , all day every day , making sure they spend their entire budget each year so they can get more for the next .

Also our rights can not be deprived or diminished without due process , neither can life , liberty or property be seized , apply this to what you will .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, always wanting to know said:

I just wanted to point out that the government can not grant rights and their powers are enumerated which means anything not enumerated to them is not under their authority.

 Government was intended to be limited , it has and is ever expanding with no end in sight , which also requires more funding from us. 

Government never cuts costs only creates them , all day every day , making sure they spend their entire budget each year so they can get more for the next .

Also our rights can not be deprived or diminished without due process , neither can life , liberty or property be seized , apply this to what you will .

 

You just posted to a 5 year old thread.

 

Also you are an idiot if you don't think the state has the ability to require a driver's licence to drive on a public road, street or highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always good when folks resurrect five-year old threads to spout nonsense.

 

 

1 hour ago, always wanting to know said:

I just wanted to point out that the government can not grant rights and their powers are enumerated which means anything not enumerated to them is not under their authority.

 

Putting aside your misuse of plural pronouns in this sentence, this sentence is not completely wrong -- as it relates to the federal government.  However, it has real truth as it relates to state governments.

 

 

1 hour ago, always wanting to know said:

Government was intended to be limited

 

The federal government was intended to be limited.  Not the case for state governments.

 

The rest of your post makes no useful points -- especially as it relates to the subject of this five-year old thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pg1067 said:

Putting aside your misuse of plural pronouns in this sentence, this sentence is not completely wrong -- as it relates to the federal government.  However, it has real truth as it relates to state governments.[/QUOTE]

 

I'm going to guess that you meant the second sentence to read: "However, it has NO real truth as it relates to state governments." 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...