a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person for no license

[freebeme]

A peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by freebeme

A peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver.

I've yet to be pulled over by a peace officer. I have been pulled over by plenty of agency employees, but once a few questions are asked, and afterthefact research is done, 99.9% of these people purporting to have the authority of a peace officer are not peace officers. THEY ARE PRIVATE OFFICERS working for a PRIVATE STANDING ARMY OF AGENCIES(private).

I like the Wal-Mart analogy. If I were traveling down the street, and a car with Wal-Mart Identification, and a man dressed in a Wal-Mart uniform and a gun, attempted to detain me, after realizing that I am not a Wal-Mart employee, and acknowledge(to myself and him) by notice, then he/she is no longer defacto or otherwise an authority figure in my life.

Some will say the above description is insane, illogical, and defend the purported officers' as protectors of the peace. I say male bovine excriment!

The way the sytem has been set up, this is reality. The men with badges are private security for a private corporation(not me), and are looking for contracts to be established.

Now, getting back to the "peace officer", there are real "peace officers", however, when I find one that meets all the requirements of a peace officer, I will let you know, and might even assist him in keeping the "peace".

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by moishanb

I've yet to be pulled over by a peace officer. I have been pulled over by plenty of agency employees, but once a few questions are asked, and afterthefact research is done, 99.9% of these people purporting to have the authority of a peace officer are not peace officers. THEY ARE PRIVATE OFFICERS working for a PRIVATE STANDING ARMY OF AGENCIES(private).

I like the Wal-Mart analogy. If I were traveling down the street, and a car with Wal-Mart Identification, and a man dressed in a Wal-Mart uniform and a gun, attempted to detain me, after realizing that I am not a Wal-Mart employee, and acknowledge(to myself and him) by notice, then he/she is no longer defacto or otherwise an authority figure in my life.

Some will say the above description is insane, illogical, and defend the purported officers' as protectors of the peace. I say male bovine excriment!

The way the sytem has been set up, this is reality. The men with badges are private security for a private corporation(not me), and are looking for contracts to be established.

Now, getting back to the "peace officer", there are real "peace officers", however, when I find one that meets all the requirements of a peace officer, I will let you know, and might even assist him in keeping the "peace".

Your analogy is excellent as it shows how ludicrous the system is.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by freebeme

A peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver.

Do you have any authority for this claim??

It makes sense for police NOT to allow an unqualified driver to drive off.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Thats true, for perhaps the wrong reason being implied here- there is no law regarding "drivers". The law does allow arrests of "operators", subject to the rules of procedure.

So an "unlicensed driver" means a driver who otherwise ought to have a license, like an 'unemployed' is a person who ought to otherwise be 'employed'.

Whereas a simple driver, with or without a license, is outside the scope of the vehicle code. The real question: is the device being driven a class of motor vehicle for which a license is required?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Do you have any authority for this claim??

It makes sense for police NOT to allow an unqualified driver to drive off.

Being able to drive to and away from any location demonstrates the skill to drive. There is no need to seek qualification for driving when one has already demonstrated the ability.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Do you have any authority for this claim??

It makes sense for police NOT to allow an unqualified driver to drive off.

Does this count?

California Vehicle Code

12801.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
department shall require an applicant for an original driver's
license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the
applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal
law.
(b) The department shall not issue an original driver's license or
identification card to a person who does not submit satisfactory
proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is
authorized under federal law.
(c) The department shall adopt regulations to carry out the
purposes of this section, including procedures for, but not limited
to, (1) verifying that the applicant's presence in the United States
is authorized under federal law, (2) issuance of a temporary license pending verification of the applicant's status, and (3) appeal hearings from a denial of a license, temporary license, or
identification card.
(d) On January 10 of each year, the department shall submit a
supplemental budget report to the Governor and the Legislature
detailing the costs of verifying the citizenship or legal residency
of applicants for driver's licenses and identification cards, in
order for the state to request reimbursement from the federal
government.
(e) Notwithstanding Section 40300 or any other provision of law, a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16 years.
(f) The inability to obtain a driver's license pursuant to this
section does not abrogate or diminish in any respect the legal
requirement of every driver in this state to obey the motor vehicle
laws of this state, including laws with respect to licensing, motor
vehicle registration, and financial responsibility.

With the immediate skepticism I wonder if I should continue to show how only US Citizens are able obtain driver's licenses and that the phrase "presence in the United States" is not what is controlling at all?

A citizen of the republic cannot obtain a driver's license. Only a State citizen who is so because of the 14th amendment acting on him and granting "State Citizenship" upon him. A Republic Citizen cannot be licensed for anything.

However maybe you are not ready for this info yet...

Peace be with you.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

nojurisdiction.com

[freebeme]

Does the above count in your measure?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Calif. Veh. Code 12801.5

(e) Notwithstanding Section 40300 or any other provision of law, a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16 years.

This provision of the California law does say that a cop cannot hold a driver on the mere belief -- as distinguished from knowledge -- that he doesn't have a DL, unless the driver is obviously too young to have a DL. This relates to the degree of evidence required. If, on the other hand, the cop can verify that this driver's license has been revoked or suspended or some such, that constitutes more than mere belief and he can make an arrest. Right now in California, cops stoppiing drivers who claim to have left their DL in their other pair of pants, insist on getting the driver's thumbprint on the ticket stub.

Even more intesting is the next paragraph of the same law:

Originally Posted by Calif. Veh. Code 12801.

(f) The inability to obtain a driver's license pursuant to this section does not abrogate or diminish in any respect the legal requirement of every driver in this state to obey the motor vehicle laws of this state, including laws with respect to licensing, motor vehicle registration, and financial responsibility.

As for being on the highway as being, itself, proof of being "qualified" to drive, every drunk driver, every senile driver, every child driver mentioned in those news stories was able to make it to the public roads. So, no, merely being on the public roads is not proof that a driver is qualified to be behind the wheel.

Another provision of the California Vehicle Code:

Originally Posted by Calif. Veh. Code 40302

40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the following cases:
(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise to appear in court.
(c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate.
(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section 23152.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As for being on the highway as being, itself, proof of being "qualified" to drive, every drunk driver, every senile driver, every child driver mentioned in those news stories was able to make it to the public roads. So, no, merely being on the public roads is not proof that a driver is qualified to be behind the wheel.

So regardless of someone having "qualified" for a license, that qualification is no more of a guarantee of their "ability" to drive at a given future time than someone on the road without a license.

Shocking!

You just walked right into that one.