Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ezrhythm
“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States
|
This is an accurate quotation from the US brief in Reno v. Condon, however (1) the brief cites no direct authority for the sentence, and (2) the Supreme Court did not repeat this sentence in its opinion.
The case of
Reno v. Condon (Jan. 12, 2000) 528 US 141, 145 L.Ed.2d 587, 120 S.Ct 666, 28 Media L.Rep. 1281, upheld the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (18 USC sec 2721 et seq). The DPPA was enacted because many state govts were selling the personal information on Drivers License applications to mailing list companies and other commercial enterprises, as a means of earning money for the state. Congress noted that some of the information on DL applications (such as SSNs and birthdates) was highly personal and releasing it could encourage fraud and other problems. Therefore the DPPA forbids the disclosure of any personal info obtained from any motor vehicle record; however, it did allow individuals applying for DLs to affirmatively permit the state to peddle their personal info, and it did allow the disclosure of vehicle accident information for statistical and insurance purposes and the like.
South Carolina and other states had made quite a bit of money from selling the DL information and those states sued to have the DPPA declared invalid under the 10th and 11th Amendments. THe lower courts sided with the states, but the Supreme Court upheld the DPPA, by finding that the sale of the information (not the driving) was unavoidably part of interstate commerce and therefore Congress could, under Art.I,Sec.3,clause 8, regulate it.
The use of this quotation from the brief raises the possibility of arguing that driving, motoring, operating a motor vehicle (however you want to call it) on the public roads falls within the category of "interstate commerce" which can be regulated by Congress or of (intrastate) "commerce" which can be regulated by the State govt, so that it could require DLs from EVERYONE who gets behind the wheel, without regard to the purpose or nature of the particular motor trip.
The courts have held that conveying anything - a person or property - across state lines is interstate commerce even if done for free; cf.
American Express Co. v. US (1909) 212 US 522 (Congress could prevent a commercial carrier from conveying certain packages for free). Interstate commerce includes the transport of people - even if those people are not themselves engaged in commerce (e.g. Greyhound Bus is in interstate commerce when it brings grandma to visit the children).
Commerce, not necessarily interstate, is always involved in operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. The person behind the wheel, whatever his purpose in going on the road, will be buying gasoline, and possibly meals, lodging or groceries for himself.
On a slightly different note, considering the confusion and chaos that would result if traffic laws (including the requirement for qualifying for a DL and the vehicle passing an inspection) applied to drivers only some of the time, depending on the nature of their driving trip, with different times for every driver. Almost anyone stopped for speeding in a private automobile will claim they were only out for the fresh air or some other commercial purpose, etc. On the same highway, wildly different standards would apply to some vehicles in traffic but not vehicles next to them.