suspended DL - unconstitutional

[sadie]

Not sure if posted in right forum



Court Strikes Down Licensing Laws

The state Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling yesterday that could mean
thousands of people whose driver's licenses were suspended won't be
prosecuted.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down two state statutes as
unconstitutional because the laws don't provide for an administrative
hearing or an appeal procedure and thus deny individuals due process
guaranteed by the Constitution.

At issue is the state Department of Licensing's (DOL) lack of a formal
hearing or appeal process for people whose licenses were suspended after
they didn't appear in court or pay traffic tickets.

Yesterday, state and city attorneys were scrambling to understand the full
implications of the ruling. In Seattle, the ruling could have serious
ramifications - and a huge financial impact - because of the city's
controversial impound policies, which the City Council recently voted to
scrap for drivers cited for third-degree license suspensions.

Drivers arrested for third-degree license suspensions typically have their
licenses lifted because they failed to pay tickets for minor traffic
violations, such as speeding. In contrast, drivers arrested for first- and
second-degree license suspensions are those whose licenses were suspended
for being habitual traffic offenders, driving while intoxicated, reckless
driving and other serious traffic offenses.

"It seems to me that any (third-degree) license suspension in the state of
Washington is currently unconstitutional because it doesn't comply with due
process," said Donna Tucker, one of two Bellevue attorneys who argued before
the Supreme Court to have the statutes struck.

Potential for Error

The case was brought before the Supreme Court after the city of Redmond
sought direct review of a King County District Court decision to dismiss
charges against two men, Jason Wilson and Dean Moore, for driving with
suspended licenses.

Wilson's license was suspended for failing to deal with a speeding ticket,
and Moore's was lifted for failing to resolve a citation for driving without
liability insurance. A district-court judge concluded the suspensions didn't
comply with due process because DOL failed to provide the opportunity for an
administrative hearing and so dismissed the charges.

In writing for the majority, Justice Richard Sanders said the statutes "are
contrary to the guaranty of due process because they do not provide adequate
procedural safeguards to ensure against the erroneous deprivation of a
driver's interest in the continued use and possession of his or her driver's
license."

There is substantial potential for error in DOL decisions to revoke a
driver's license, especially given that DOL issues some 300,000 suspension
notices a year based on information from the courts, Sanders wrote. When a
driver receives notice his or her license is to be suspended, the individual
has 30 days to resolve the issue in court.

"He or she is not, however, offered any procedure to contest the suspension
other than being instructed by the notice to resolve the matter with the
court," Sanders wrote. "The public is left to its own devices to secure a
timely hearing from a court to reverse the error before the suspension takes
effect."

Burden on DOL

But in a seven-page dissenting opinion written by Justice Bobbe Bridge, four
justices argued that just because there's a potential for error, no evidence
was provided to show a pattern of erroneous license suspensions.

The dissenting justices also pointed out that requiring DOL to give an
administrative hearing to anyone whose license is suspended would require
vast public resources for the staff, time and space to conduct such
hearings.

"The majority seizes upon the scant record in these cases to answer a
question that has not been raised by any party and in so doing stretches the
requirements of due process beyond precedent and common sense - establishing
no clear benefit for the licensees and burdening an administrative system
designed by the Legislature to provide swift determination for the
protection of the motoring public," Bridge wrote.

Gerald Anderson, an assistant attorney general who advised DOL on the case,
said his office is still trying to digest the court's ruling. Because the
court struck down the statutes, it's unlikely DOL can devise an
administrative remedy, he said, adding "it's too early to speculate what
legislative remedies are possible."

A Redmond city prosecutor and a DOL spokesman would not comment yesterday,
both saying they needed more time to analyze the decision.

Financial Impact

The impact could be huge for Seattle, which has seized, towed and held
almost 5,000 vehicles a year from drivers with third-degree license
suspensions. Roughly 30 percent of those vehicles are scheduled for auction
because their owners could not pay fees, fines and storage charges. But the
city doesn't track how many are sold, said Kathryn Harper, spokeswoman for
the City Attorney's Office.

Some lawyers believe the city faces potential financial liability for
vehicles seized under its Operation Impound program.

"I think a strong argument can be made that all seizures were unlawful and
drivers deserve compensation. This would be additional legal basis for that
argument," said Lisa Daugaard, a public defender and outspoken critic of
Seattle's impound law.

The number of drivers who might seek compensation, the amount they might
want and the validity of their claims remain to be seen.

But a very rough estimate of $10 million in damages is reasonable, said Adam
Berger, an attorney who has brought a class-action lawsuit against the
city's former policy, which was in effect from 2000 to late 2002. After
that, police officers exercised discretion but still impounded the vehicles
of 80 percent of the drivers they cited for third-degree license
suspensions.

Berger's estimate is based on the premise that there could be 10,000 drivers
seeking compensation, with claims of about $1,000 each, on average.

Meanwhile, impound opponents who pushed the City Council to dump the
controversial impound law in a 6-2 vote two weeks ago said the court's
decision validated their arguments.

"It's a welcome decision as far as I'm concerned," said Councilwoman Jean
Godden, who co-sponsored the ordinance to repeal the impound policy.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels signed the ordinance into law yesterday.

© 2004 The Seattle Times Company. All rights reserved

I can't wait to return to court on my susp. license arraignment !!! My license was originally suspended for not paying a fine, but I plan on going to the DMV to verify that.

Question: How does this effect citizen from other states? I live in California.

I copied some documents that Black Truth submitted regarding demanding an administrative hearing according to the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court still hasn't ruled on the motion to dismiss. BT's docs must have them on the run.

Okay here is what I think.

Based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution (art. IV, Sect. 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative act, public records and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. There are a few exceptionsto this like a state need not recognize a divorce decree of a state where neither partywas a legal resident. But basically the doctrine means that a statemust accord the judgement of a court of another state the same creditthat it is entitled to in the courts of that state. Morphet v. Morphet, 263 Or. 311, 502 P.2d 255, 260.

A judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence it taken. Christmas v. Russell, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 290, 18 L.Ed. 475.

Also based on the Fauntleroy doctrine; In Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S. Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039, the U.S. Supreme Ct. held that a state must give full faith and credit to a judgement of a sister state if such statehad jurisdiction to render it even though the judgement is based on an original cause of action which is illegal in the state in which enforcement is sought.

Any assistance that any one would care to offer on how I can use this would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to get to over confident and have the judge hit me with something unexpected.

Okay I have to be in court in 2 weeks so I was wondering if this would carry some weight in court? Any opinions or advise would be be greatly appreciated. Thanks.



TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER; AND OR PROSECUTION

1) Respondent xxxxxxxxxx, hereinafter “the Undersigned”, Sui Juris, Suo nomine and Tertius Interveniens, by special visitation [special appearance] and not Generally or Voluntarily, at Common Law; reserving, enforcing and invoking all State and Federal constitutional rights, safeguards and privileges and immunities and enforcing all constitutional limitations on all government agencies and agents when dealing with them; not acquiescing to any quasi or colorable jurisdictions, consenting and conferring only to the judicial power of the United States of America and the California Republic state; who is untrained in the law and asks that the court take Judicial Notice of the enunciation principles; and requesting that this and subsequent pleadings be “liberally construed” pursuant to Haines vs. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, wherein the court has directed that those unschooled in law, making pleadings and/or complaints shall have the court look to the substance of the pleadings rather than the form, and hereby submitting the above-entitled pleading in the above-captioned matter based on the attached documents and Memorandum of Law.


2) The accused is a Citizen endowed with certain inalienable rights protected by the state constitution and the federal U.S. Constitution, including, but not limited to, the right to travel freely and to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. See California Constitution Art. 1, Section 7.

3) The accused is being charged with allegedly violating the following California Vehicle Code(s) (CVC):

A) CVC section 14601.1 (a), commonly known as driving on a revoked or suspended license.

4) The rights of the accused to travel freely and not be deprived of liberty or property are being threatened by the agency’s charge of the aforementioned alleged Vehicle Code violations.

5) The defendants California drivers license was originally suspended for failure to make a court appearance and pay fines pursuant to CVC section 40508 (a) (b).

6) CVC section 13365 (a) allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend driving privileges upon a receipt of certified notification of a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of section 40508 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

7) Drivers license suspensions issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for violations of subsection (a) or (b) of (CVC) 40508 for failure to pay fines and/ or failure to appear in court after signing a Notice to Appear (ticket) are third-class suspensions/violations.

8) The Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled on 6/28/04 in the case City of Redmond vs. Dean A. Moore and City of Redmond vs. Jason D. Wilson; docket # 72614-1, that license suspensions on the grounds that a person failed to respond to a notice of traffic violation, failed to appear at a requested hearing, violated a written notice to appear in court, or has failed to comply with the terms of a notice of traffic violation as (State of Washington codes) RCW 46.20.289 and RCW 46.20.324 permits, and the corresponding California Vehicle Code section 13365 also permits, are contrary to the guaranty of due process because they do not provide adequate procedural safeguards to ensure against the erroneous deprivation of a driver’s interest in the continued use and possession of his or her drivers license. “As such, because a driver cannot be convicted of the offense of driving while license suspended where the suspension violated due process.” State vs. Dolson , 138 Wn.2d at 773, 783, 982 P.2d. 100 (1999).

9) “It is well settled that driver’s license may not be suspended or revoked without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment”. Dixon vs. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112, 97 S. Ct.1723,52 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1977) [quoting Bell vs. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. Ed.. 2d 90 (1971)]; City of Redmond vs. Arroyo-Murillo, 149 Wn.2d 607, 612, 70 P.3d 947 (2003).

10) “Though the procedures may vary according to the interest at stake, the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”. Matthews vs. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). [quoting Armstrong vs. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct. L. Ed. 2d (1965)].

11) Full Faith and Credit Clause: The clause of the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of other states within the United States. Doctrine means that a state must accord the judgment of a court of another state the same credit that it is entitled to in the courts of that state. A judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Christmas vs. Russell, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 290, 18 L. Ed. 475; McElmoyle vs. Cohen, 38 U.S. (Pet.) 312, 10 L. Ed. 177; Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia vs. Gold Issue Min. and Mill. Co., 243 U.S. 93, 37 S. Ct. 344, 61 L. Ed. 610.

12) Fauntleroy Doctrine : In Fauntleroy vs. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S. Ct. 641, 52 L. Ed. 1039, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state must give full faith and credit to a judgment of a sister state if such state had jurisdiction to render it even though the judgment is based on an original cause of action which is illegal in state in which enforcement is sought.

13) The accused is also challenging the constitutional validity of separate convictions pursuant to CVC section 41403 (a) which states: In any proceedings to have a judgment of a conviction of a violation of section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 23152 or 23153, or section 23103 as specified in section 23105.5 which was entered in separate proceedings, declared invalid on constitutional grounds, the defendant shall state in writing and with specificity wherein the defendant was deprived of the defendant’s a constitutional rights, which statement shall be filed with the clerk of the court and a copy served on the court that rendered that judgment and on the prosecuting attorney in the present proceedings at least five days prior to the hearing thereon.

[Jerseee]

tlynum,

I'm not sure that licensing is constitutional at all. I mean, you always here the judge say, "this is not a constitutional matter". And they (BB) always tell you that driving is a privilege. Meaning that it is not a right. Now you have the right to travel but driving is a privilege.

I would do a little more research because if they (DOL) can suspend a license, that means that its their property.

Just my thoughts--not the gospel.

[test]

There is a lot of information here:

http://www.outlawslegal.com/drivingindex.htm