Traffic Ticket Question

[Bailey]

Not quite, if that were the case they could just order everyone to get a license to walk down the road or down a sidewalk. I think someone has been sipping on too much of the funny tasting kool-aid. Where do people get this stuff from. You are partly right, they could have jurisdiction if a crime has been committed or civil action takes place involving damages to one's health or property.

The rules of the road were created to establish liability in case of an accident and to avoid accidents from occurring. Now they are just a means to generate revenue for the people that don't want to work for a living. Traffic laws are nothing more than recommendations, of course if you don't follow the rules and wreck someone's car... you sure could be held responsible.

Let me see, the king says bend down and kiss my ass to use the road, so that means the servant bows down and kisses... which is fine in my book... The People are King in this country, at least that the way it was established.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Not quite. The state (and its subdivisions, such as cities and counties) has the responsibility for and jurisdiction over the public roads. You use their roads, you must do it according to their rules. That should be simple enough.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The California Vehicle Code, not the Penal Code, addresses the topics of traffic court and traffic tickets.

Traffic court is not criminal court, traffic cases are not criminal cases, so the various refinements and Constitutional rights applicable to criminal cases are not necessarily available in traffic court.

Although the traffic ticket serves the purpose of a summons to traffic court, it is not a conventional summons and does not need to comply with criteria for a conventional summons.

So what do you say traffic offenses are? Civil?
Where I am, they are quasi-criminal and I would be surprised, VERY surprised if that were not the case in most places.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am willing to bet that no court have ever said that.

Driving (or operating or whatever word you want to use) a motor vehicle on the public roads is a privilege, not a right. The privilege is available only to those who comply with the state's motor vehicle laws, which require current and valid (govt-issued) documentation that the motorist is considered fit to operate a vehicle (namely, a driver's license) and that this particular vehicle is roadworthy (the registration and license plate), and (in some jurisdictions) that he is financially responsible (an insurance card issued according to state regulations).

A DL is not a contract, but if you insist on seeing a contract somewhere in this, then consider it an implied contract. If you drive on the public roads, then you must comply with the state's laws and regulations for motor vehicles and drivers.

The privilege is not so much associated with the mere sitting in the driver's seat as it is with piloting a car on the public roads where it comes into proximity with other people and their cars. You probably don't need a DL to motor around in your own backyard, ripping up your own lawn.

If you are insistent on some Constitutional Right that you think is incompatible with compliance with the state motor vehicle laws, the choice is up to you. Ease up on your interpretation of your Rights, comply with the laws and obtain the privilege of driving on the public roads; or keep your rights inviolate and walk, take a bus, be a licensed driver's passenger, anything but steer a motor vehicle onto the public roads. A case on point is Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839.

You are partially correct. Travelling is an inalienable right. Plus, the roads, unless they are privately owned, are funded by the people, so they are co-tenants in common. Why do we need permission to use our own property? If we harm others, that is a different story.
Question. Why did our ancestors not need permission to ride horses on the roads?

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And I'll bet you can't find a court decision that says that, either.
Don't be so dense, you know that not all cases are decided and then listed as a decision. Some cases are dismissed, some are dealt with in chambers and so on.
Is there physical pain associated with being so obtuse??

You should know.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Not quite. The state (and its subdivisions, such as cities and counties) has the responsibility for and jurisdiction over the public roads. You use their roads, you must do it according to their rules. That should be simple enough.

It is NOT their roads, it is OUR roads.

[robhalford88]

Oops, double post. Sorry.

[robhalford88]

Oops, double post. Sorry.

[robhalford88]

Oops, double post. Sorry.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Well, they still have time to move. Are they answering any motions? Did you demand a Bill of Particulars? Just curious not offering advice. Do you have court date? If it's personal, no need to answer I understand.

What does a Bill of Particulars involve? Never drafted one. Nothin' personal about this case. Its pretty straightforward. No new court date offered by the County.

[Shoonra]

The line about all criminal offenses being subject to civil suit, particularly for tort, is just plain wrong. It's a very common misconception but it's wrong.

Yes, a traffic stop is an arrest. It's an arrest even without any questioning. But the vast majority of the time it will be very temporary if you are reasonably cooperative and polite. I think most people would tell you that insulting the policeman will worsen any situation.

[Bailey]

It's funny how many times I have shown where this person is completely wrong on just about anything he/she says... yet continues to post out here telling people how wrong they are.

One word come to mind... sad.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The line about all criminal offenses being subject to civil suit, particularly for tort, is just plain wrong. It's a very common misconception but it's wrong.

Yes, a traffic stop is an arrest. It's an arrest even without any questioning. But the vast majority of the time it will be very temporary if you are reasonably cooperative and polite. I think most people would tell you that insulting the policeman will worsen any situation.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by steve762

If you were driving uinder suspension,without proof of insurance, had a loud muffler or burned out tail light etc. how would you defend your self?

What do you advise a layman to do who had a family and children and worked a $7.00 an hour job and brought home something like $250 a week and paid $500 a month rent?

Explain the value of the polite police officer (hereafter municipal policy employee, acronym MPE)to the man going to jail and levied ,oh, say close to a $1,000 bucks in Iowa for the afore mentioned citations, depending on how many priors you got on no insuranceand driving under suspension.

So in a situation where there is no win, how would you handle it?

You get me there! Tell your pathetic scofflaw friend to be as obnoxious to the traffic cop as humanly possible. Let me know how that works for him.

[Bailey]

Nice contribution to the group. Quite sad.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You get me there! Tell your pathetic scofflaw friend to be as obnoxious to the traffic cop as humanly possible. Let me know how that works for him.