Ridiculous "Speeding" Ticket...Is This What America's Come To? (left turn, race car)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the case cited earlier, Miller v. Reed, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit:
"The district court dismissed Miller's section 1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We conclude that by denying Miller a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself-the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel. We also conclude that Miller's free exercise of religion is not violated by California's valid and neutral requirement that all applicants for a new or renewed driver's license provide a social security number. Finally, Miller does not present a hybrid claim, which would require that we apply strict scrutiny to the DMV's failure to issue him a driver's license, because he has failed to supplement his free exercise of religion claim with another constitutional claim of colorable merit."
Wall v. King, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, was a case where the registrar, though absolutely within their legal and constitutional authority to suspend a license, did so improperly and without due process. Here's the case for those who would like to read it for themselves.
Bell v. Burson, by the very quote used by Drover, states that it is due process that is a right, not the privilege of driving a motor vehicle, license to do so which may be removed with due process.
The others also have to do with violations of the right of due process. In every case, the privilege of driving may be revoked if due process is followed.
precisely. as with any license, there is a due process to obtain them, and a due process to revoke them. there is not "right" to be a building contractor, and no "right" to be a lawyer or a doctor, but these professions have licenses attached to them. licenses which can with proper due process be revoked.
I'm sorry, but I've had enough. I was driving in a "school zone" at 4:28 PM. I was going the speed of traffic, I was going on a major street in my city, there was no "pedestrians" around, and it was, I repeat, 4:28 PM. School was long, long over. But, ok, if the speed limit was 20 and I was going 45, then I would understand getting a ticket, but no, I was going 27 miles per hour at 4:28 PM with no pedestrians on a major road in my city when school was almost 1:30 hours out of session and I get slapped with a speed limit for speeding in a "school zone". From research, apparently, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, going at 26 is a ticket. So, I was one mph above that an hour and a half after school ended, going the speed of traffic. This all makes sense. While my city has one of the highest murder rates in the country, with gangs roaming the city untouched, I am slapped with a ticket for this.
Good job, police department. You "got" me!
There could always be students present at school for activities...you can't think of school zones during school hours and not after school programs, detentions, games, and activities after school. There's a reason why the government named the zone "school zone". Your speed can still hit sudden school pedestrians...
School zone IS school zone whether it gets a little darker at night also.
To me the issue isn't the placement of the camera by itself. Judging by where it's aimed, it looks to clock people right as they hit the sign. By black-letter law, you are supposed to be reduced to the speed at the sign by the time you reach it.
To me the issue is that this is a zone with variable speed limits in force at different times, and people are expected to read the enforcement hours on the school zone sign and comply with it before they reach the sign. IMO this does not provide reasonable notice to comply with the speed limit before reaching the sign in light of a) the font is too small to read from a adequate distance to give sufficient warning to be in compliance before reaching the sign, and b) there are no prior warning signs indicating a school zone ahead or enforcement hours thereof before reaching the actual enforcement zone. This is the only school zone I've ever seen that begins only half a block from the school and that has no prior warning that you're approaching a school zone until you reach the enforcement zone itself. It's also the only one where I've seen a "normal" speed limit sign followed a scant 140 feet later by a sign basically saying, "just kidding, the speed limit is really 20, maybe, depending on what time of day it is, and good luck deciphering the enforcement hours in time to comply before the camera gets you." And if the article I linked to is accurate, there is a better than 50/50 chance the warning lights were not functioning properly either, which is the cherry on top.
If in fact this camera is about the safety of the children, then a) remove the ambiguity of having having the two speed limit signs one right after the other, b) hard-wire the warning lights so that they function properly and consistently; and c) expand the distance of the school zone so that it begins way sooner than a mere 115 feet from the school if you want to ensure people are in compliance by the time they reach the school. Move the sign and flashing lights a block further out, leave the camera where it is, and if motorists still haven't slowed down by the time they reach the camera, then mail 'em a supplemental tax bill. But the way this school zone and camera are currently configured makes it very difficult to believe this is anything more or less than a naked revenue grab.
From the case cited earlier, Miller v. Reed, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit:
"The district court dismissed Miller's section 1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We conclude that by denying Miller a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself-the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel. We also conclude that Miller's free exercise of religion is not violated by California's valid and neutral requirement that all applicants for a new or renewed driver's license provide a social security number. Finally, Miller does not present a hybrid claim, which would require that we apply strict scrutiny to the DMV's failure to issue him a driver's license, because he has failed to supplement his free exercise of religion claim with another constitutional claim of colorable merit."
Wall v. King, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, was a case where the registrar, though absolutely within their legal and constitutional authority to suspend a license, did so improperly and without due process. Here's the case for those who would like to read it for themselves.
Bell v. Burson, by the very quote used by Drover, states that it is due process that is a right, not the privilege of driving a motor vehicle, license to do so which may be removed with due process.
The others also have to do with violations of the right of due process. In every case, the privilege of driving may be revoked if due process is followed.
And do you know why due process is required to deny issuance of or revoke a driver's license? Because "the freedom to make use of . . . a motor vehicle, as a means of getting about from place to place . . . is a 'liberty' which under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be denied or curtailed by a state without due process of law" (Wall v. King) and because "the application and issuance of a motor vehicle operator's license . . . involves a federally protected right" (Raper v. Lucey) (emphasis added in both cases). Due process would not be required if issuing, denying, or revoking driver's licenses were discretionary. So thank you for helping to illustrate my point even if you don't understand that's what you've done.
Some of you people seem to think a right isn't a right if it can be revoked pursuant to due process. But even fundamental rights can be revoked if they are not exercised responsibly -- ask anyone who's sitting in jail.
Last edited by Drover; 03-23-2015 at 06:23 PM..
Reason: added case citation
Here's a tip for ya: at the top right corner of each thread is a "Thread Tools" button. If you click on it, there is an Unsubscribe" option in the drop-down menu. Feel free to avail yourself of it.
Here's a tip for ya: at the top right corner of each thread is a "Thread Tools" button. If you click on it, there is an Unsubscribe" option in the drop-down menu. Feel free to avail yourself of it.
You're welcome.
It has nothing do what that. At this point, its one big circle jerk, and no progress is being made. No one is going to change any one else's mind/opinion.
It has nothing do what that. At this point, its one big circle jerk, and no progress is being made. No one is going to change any one else's mind/opinion.
Do you have anything productive to add? No? Then don't comment!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
