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.
Why in the world do they announce before hand where they're setting up the checkpoints? It seems counter productive to catching drunk drivers. Is this part of the law as well?
Yes, pretty much. Opponents of the checkpoints usually argue they violate the fourth amendment. Advance notification was one of the conditions that the USSC recommended be met in order for checkpoints not to be found constitutionally invalid.
As I understand, there is enough distinction in the law that an administrative checkpoint is not the same as a traffic stop. An administrative checkpoint is well defined by the NRS.
I wasn't drawing a parallel between DUI checkpoints and traffic stops. Just pointing out that you can be pulled over without an articulable reason, or put another way, without reasonable cause.
NRS 484B.580, Failure to stop at roadblock; penalties. It is unlawful for a person to;
1. Proceed or travel through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock without subjecting himself or herself to the traffic control established at the roadblock. (You must stop but you have the right to remain silent and I suggest that you use it).
Prior to entering the roadblock there will be an "escape route" to turn around or bypass the checkpoint. If legal you may bypass, however be prepared to get pulled over "illegally" for bypassing the checkpoint. Once again, keep it simple. Get the event # and hold the officer accountable as he has to have reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime.
2. Disobey the lawful orders or directions of a police officer at an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock. (An officer commanding you to waive your right to remain silent does not constitute a lawful order).
Driving is a a privilege, not a right, so there is no question of constitutionality. Out here in Nevada, the DMV is it's own adjudicative authority and readily revokes and suspends licenses on the mere accusation of certain offenses. The laws of the court do not apply to the administrative decisions of the DMV.
I don't know who on earth came up with this "privilege" non-sense. Sounds like propaganda drummed up by the Republic and enforced by storm troopers.
Many court decisions say otherwise.
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. This was ruled by the Supreme court. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
You have the right to use public roads to travel. (See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.) The word public broadly means belonging to the people. Do public roads not belong to the people? I bet you believe they belong to the state.
You also have the RIGHT to transport property on such roadways via an automobile. The automobile itself being property as well. The state can not take property without due process, therefore it is illegal for them to impound your car.
The "United States Supreme Court" states:
"The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law."
The right to own property also implies you have the right to use said property. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Citizen has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel.
The ninth amendment of the constitution states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
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.
It is the police who act unlawfully. Open your eyes and know your rights.
I don't know who on earth came up with this "privilege" non-sense. Sounds like propaganda drummed up by the Republic and enforced by storm troopers.
Many court decisions say otherwise.
Then it shouldn't be terribly difficult to cite one, right?
Quote:
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. This was ruled by the Supreme court. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Can you cut & paste the portion that established that driving is a right?
Quote:
You have the right to use public roads to travel. (See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.) The word public broadly means belonging to the people. Do public roads not belong to the people? I bet you believe they belong to the state.
Near as I can tell, Weirich v. State further established the definition of public roads, but did nothing to establish driving as a right. I've used multiple legal search engines and still can't find the case text. Maybe you'll have better luck than me.
Quote:
You also have the RIGHT to transport property on such roadways via an automobile. The automobile itself being property as well. The state can not take property without due process, therefore it is illegal for them to impound your car.
Even the right to transport property on public highways does not establish the right to drive. If my driver's license has been suspended, the law does not stop me from hiring a moving company to move my property wherever I want to go.
Quote:
The "United States Supreme Court" states:
"The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law."
The right to own property also implies you have the right to use said property. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Citizen has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel.
The ninth amendment of the constitution states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
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.
It is the police who act unlawfully. Open your eyes and know your rights.
All of the above reminds me of the nutballs who use half baked interpretations of case law to support the notion that federal income tax is unconstitutional. Those guys usually end up in prison or the poor house. I wish you better luck in your fight.
You have the right to use public roads to travel. (See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.) The word public broadly means belonging to the people. Do public roads not belong to the people? I bet you believe they belong to the state.
You are right. The roads belong to you and me. You are free to travel, license or not. You can use your Chevrolegs, a horse and buggy, a Greyhound bus, radio flyer or bicycle. All of these modes of transportation are to your avail.
But you need a license to operate a motor vehicle...and that is not an unalienable right.
All of the above reminds me of the nutballs who use half baked interpretations of case law to support the notion that federal income tax is unconstitutional. Those guys usually end up in prison or the poor house. I wish you better luck in your fight.
Tony I don't fight anything. I follow the laws of the land. I don't drink and
drive for one thing. I don't even speed. I am a law abiding citizen, combat veteran and was literally born on the 4th of July. I also think tea parties are for little girls.
I'm not the one trying to weasel out of a DUI I committed, nor am I trying to get out of paying Federal income tax. We could get into a states right debate I suppose but we'll save that for a rainy day.
I find it rather ironic that such a law and order guy uses a handle that comes from a fictitious character who glorifies criminal activity and civil disobedience.
I think you've simply been socially conditioned to believe that the government is some benevolent benefactor. They're not. In fact they are the greatest threat to individual freedom and must be monitored and scrutinized very closely.
The government does give privileges. Driving, voting, freedom of speech. These are not "privileges" they are rights. The government has the privilege of serving the people.
You have to be a critical thinker. The main question you should always ask is "Whom does this benefit?" "Who stands to gain from this?"
Civil disobedience is of course not very lucrative hence the term "You can't fight City Hall."
Here are some of the cases you asked for:
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.
You are right. The roads belong to you and me. You are free to travel, license or not. You can use your Chevrolegs, a horse and buggy, a Greyhound bus, radio flyer or bicycle. All of these modes of transportation are to your avail.
But you need a license to operate a motor vehicle...and that is not an unalienable right.
It could be argued otherwise, but common sense prevailing we do need to regulate travel. For instance we do need people to drive on the same side of the road. That could qualify as a restriction to personal freedom.
I am not really suggesting that there should be no regulations and restrictions on driving. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the government has the audacity to say they give us privileges.
We are NOT free men because of the government, we are FREE because brave men and women gave their lives for it. They gave their lives to give the GOVERNMENT the privilege of serving "WE THE PEOPLE"
Has anyone here recently been charged with a DUI? This weekend I was pulled over and blew into the breathalyzer only to be told that I was going to be arrested for driving under the influence. I spent 14 hours in the county jail and was released without bail, charged with a misdemeanor being my first offense and all.
Now, I am the sole provider of my fiancee and 3 kids (doubt they will care too much about this as I should not have been out driving under the influence with a family at home) and it is very important that I make it to work everyday; I would rather not take the bus as it is a very professional and formal job. I do not care what it costs, but are there lawyers out there that will get me classes, fines, whatever it takes not to lose my license?
Any information is appreciated so that I am not so blind as to what is going to happen and how. I am already told that I should call the DMV and contest the DUI soas not to lose my license right away (the county jail did not take or say anything about revoking it). Is this possible and how should I go about it?
Well, I have to be honest and say that I'm glad you were taken off the road on the spot, I have many loved ones (including a bunch of new driver teens) out on the roads, so even one less drunk driver out there is a good thing.
The posters who told you about losing your license for 3 months with a restriction of driving to and from work are correct (LVD)...this link goes to one of those attys who deal with the crime you committed but the webpage is chock full of info you might find useful.
Good luck and please more careful.
If this is a first offense, the administrative suspension is for a period of 90 days. It is, however, possible to request a restricted license permitting driving to, from, and in the course of employment once the first 45 days of the suspension has passed. The suspension period increases to one year on a second offense within seven years, and to 3-5 years for a third or subsequent offense. Reinstatement of the license requires the payment of fees and filing an “SR22” form showing proof of insurance.
Tony I don't fight anything. I follow the laws of the land. I don't drink and drive for one thing. I don't even speed. I am a law abiding citizen, combat veteran and was literally born on the 4th of July. I also think tea parties are for little girls.
I'm not the one trying to weasel out of a DUI I committed, nor am I trying to get out of paying Federal income tax. We could get into a states right debate I suppose but we'll save that for a rainy day.
I find it rather ironic that such a law and order guy uses a handle that comes from a fictitious character who glorifies criminal activity and civil disobedience.
I think you've simply been socially conditioned to believe that the government is some benevolent benefactor. They're not. In fact they are the greatest threat to individual freedom and must be monitored and scrutinized very closely.
The government does give privileges. Driving, voting, freedom of speech. These are not "privileges" they are rights. The government has the privilege of serving the people.
You have to be a critical thinker. The main question you should always ask is "Whom does this benefit?" "Who stands to gain from this?"
Civil disobedience is of course not very lucrative hence the term "You can't fight City Hall."
Here are some of the cases you asked for:
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.
You're not providing critical thinking. Far from it. You're providing snippets of case law that every other nut job on the internet cut & pastes to support their misguided belief that driving is a right. While you insist that driving is a right, you can't cite a single case where a high court simply states "driving is a right". Why? Instead you offer up snippets that state that highways are public and that citizens have the right to travel without recognizing that neither indicate that you have the right to drive.
Let's take a look at how the notion that citizens have the right to drive a motor vehicle on public roads holds up in court - paying particular attention to the same citation of case law that you used and the reference to the fifth amendment.
Quote:
CITY OF SPOKANE, Respondent,
v.
Julie Anne PORT, Petitioner.
No. 6927-3-III.
Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division 3, Panel Four.
March 27, 1986.
Julie Anne Port, pro se.
James C. Sloane, City Atty. by Michael Nelson, City Pros.,
Spokane, for respondent.
McINTURFF, Judge. We are asked to determine whether RCW 46.20.021 and Spokane Municipal Code 16.20.021, requiring a motor vehicle operator to be licensed, unconstitutionally restrict one's right to travel.
On July 7, 1984, Spokane police officer Michael Heinen observed a motor vehicle, operated by Julie Anne Port, proceed through a steady red traffic control light in downtown Spokane. The officer stopped the vehicle and asked Ms. Port for her driver's license no less than six times. After she refused to respond to these requests, Ms. Port was arrested and cited for refusal to give information or cooperate with an officer, no valid operator's license, and resisting arrest. Spokane Municipal Code 10.07.030, .050, 16.20.021. The first of these charges was dropped prior to trial. After a District Court jury found Ms. Port guilty on both counts, she appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the conviction. This court granted discretionary review.
Ms. Port contends RCW 46.20.021 and Spokane Municipal Code 16.20.021 are unconstitutional as applied to her because they improperly restrict her right to travel upon the public highways. It is well settled that the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to travel, although it is not always clear which constitutional provision affords the protection. See Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 175, 99 S.Ct. 471, 474, 58 L.Ed.2d 435 (1978); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958). [FN1] This fundamental constitutional right applies both to interstate and intrastate travel. Compare Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (interstate travel) with Macias v. Department of Labor & Indus., 100 Wash.2d 263, 272, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983), and Eggert v. Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 840, 505 P.2d 801 (1973) (intrastate travel). Freedom of movement is at the heart of our scheme of values, for it may be as keen an interest of the individual as the choice of what he reads, says, eats or wears.
FN1. See also, Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 62 S.Ct. 164, 177, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941) (Douglas, J., concurring); Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97 (1908); Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 129, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900); Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L.Ed. 744 (1867).
Ms. Port attempts to extend this fundamental rule, alleging she has a right, rather than privilege, to operate a motor vehicle upon public highways and streets. Consequently, she claims RCW 46.20.021 is unconstitutional as it makes the exercise of that purported right a crime. "Right" and "privilege" have assumed a variety of meanings, depending upon the context in which they are used. As used here, "privilege" means a qualified right or a particular advantage enjoyed by a class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens, Black's Law Dictionary 1077 (5th ed. 1979); see also R. Pound, Readings on the History and Systems of the Common Law 468 (3d ed. 1927), whereas "right" connotes an interest belonging to every person. Black's Law Dictionary at 1190; Pound, at 467-68; Compare 72 CJS Privilege (1951 & Supp.1985) with 77 CJS Right (1952 & Supp.1985). Hence, driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination. RCW 46.20.031; .120. [FN2] This privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare. See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wash.2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel); Crossman v. Department of Licensing, 42 Wash.App. 325, 328 n. 2, 711 P.2d 1053 (1985) (privilege to drive not a "fundamental right"); State ex rel. Juckett v. Evergreen Dist. Ct., 32 Wash.App. 49, 55, 645 P.2d 734 (1982) (driver's license is privilege granted by State). This is because the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [FN3] See 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27:
FN2. Virtually every state addressing this issue concludes that the license to drive an automobile is a privilege which may be extended to individuals under certain circumstances. E.g., State v. Svendrowski, 692 S.W.2d 348, 349 (Mo.App.1985); Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Schaejbe, 687 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.1985); State v. Coyle, 14 Ohio App.3d 185, 470 N.E.2d 457, 458 (1984); Hanson v. State, 673 P.2d 657, 658 (Wyo.1983); Mackler v. Alexis, 130 Cal.App.3d 44, 181 Cal.Rptr. 613, 622-23 (1982); State ex rel. Hjelle v. A Motor Vehicle etc., 299 N.W.2d 557, 562 (N.D.1980); Smith v. Cox, 609 P.2d 1332, 1333 (Utah 1980); cf., Gordon v. State, 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct.App.) appeal dismissed, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 35, 88 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985), reh'g denied, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986) (whether termed right or privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is subject to reasonable regulation by the state).
FN3. The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process. See also, Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915) (states may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in the operation upon its highways of motor vehicles and, it may require the licensing of drivers).
Here, RCW 46.20.021 requires a license to drive or operate a motor vehicle upon our state highways. Licensing is a means by which the state may determine whether vehicle operators have acquired a minimal standard of competence. Mandating driver competence is a public purpose within the police power of the state because it furthers the interests of public safety and welfare. It is designed to improve the safety of our highways and to protect and enhance the well-being of the residents and visitors of our state. RCW 46.01.011; 46.20.021. This is a reasonable and justifiable exercise of the police power.
As previously noted, Ms. Port does not allege the license requirement is unconstitutional in all circumstances. She believes the State should issue a "certificate of competence" rather than a driver's license. Ms. Port claims she is constitutionally entitled to this special status because she is not engaged in commercial travel. She relies principally upon quotations from Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 72 A.L.R. 604 (1930), and Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill.App. 94 (1904). Although the Thompson court declared the right to travel public highways an individual's "common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty," the court also noted that the exercise of such a common right may be regulated under the City's police power if in the interest of public safety and welfare. Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583. The City driver's license revocation ordinance at issue in Thompson was upheld except to the extent it granted broad discretion to the City's chief of police to revoke licenses. "The issuance and revocation of such [driving] permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare." Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583.
Nor do we find persuasive Chicago v. Banker, supra, where the court determined the requirement of a driver license unfairly burdens one who uses his automobile for private business and pleasure. The court conditioned the ability to drive a motor vehicle upon driving which would not interfere "with the safety of others." Chicago v. Banker, supra at 99. Furthermore, the issuance of a "certificate of competence" would change only the name, not the substance, of what is currently known as a "driver's license" since one cannot obtain such unless driving proficiency has been demonstrated. Because our State has determined that driver education and licensing examinations enhance the ability of drivers and the safety of our highways, RCW 46.01.011, 46.20.021, we hold that the statute here is a reasonable regulation furthering the public safety and welfare. Only by lifting statements from context and by ignoring difficult language does Ms. Port make Thompson and Banker and other cases support her position. Providing similar examples from other cases cited by Ms. Port would only unnecessarily lengthen this opinion.
Lastly, Ms. Port claims the State licensing statute applies only to commercial operators of motor vehicles. She claims since she was not engaged in the business of transportation, she did not violate the act. An unambiguous statute is not subject to construction; there is no need to resort to dictionary definitions. Vita Food Prods., Inc. v. State, 91 Wash.2d 132, 134, 587 P.2d 535 (1978); Adams v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 38 Wash.App. 13, 16, 683 P.2d 1133 (1984); State v. Hayes, 37 Wash.App. 786, 788, 683 P.2d 237 (1984). An ambiguous term is one that is susceptible to more than one meaning. Adams, 38 Wash.App. at 16, 683 P.2d 1133; Harding v. Warren, 30 Wash.App. 848, 850, 639 P.2d 750 (1982).
The statute in question, RCW 46.20.021, reads: "No person ... may drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a valid driver's license issued under the provisions of this chapter." Ms. Port's argument that this provision requires a license only for those operating commercial vehicles is clearly without merit. RCW 46.04.370 eliminates any alleged ambiguity with respect to the violation here because the section defines an operator or driver as "every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of RCW 46. See, e.g., In re Arambul, 37 Wash.App. 805, 807-08, 683 P.2d 1123 (1984).
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
GREEN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
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.
