Right to Travel Court Cites

[redy2fiyt]

Thanks for the quick reply, Shoonra.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, I don't say "traveling" because that is not specific for being behind the steering wheel. I could be "traveling" when walking, sledding, or in the back seat of a vehicle.

Thank you for re-iterating what I already stated. However non-specific it may be, it does encompass and include "being behind a steering wheel".

Originally Posted by Shoonra

At least one court case made it clear that the judge was not persuaded by the attempt to describe unlicensed driving as "traveling in my personal property".

Please provide a cite to the court case. Also, entities such as Ticket Slayer and their accompanying testimonials along with the prior cites we have seen on this forum including those listed below, seem to prove otherwise:

Chicago Motor Coach V City of Chicago
25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 163:

The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; .

Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "

Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It's worth pointing out that the traffic laws apply to vehicles put on the public streets, not on vehicles used exclusively on private property (such as tractors and golf carts or formula-1 race cars). The govt is responsible for the public streets - paving them, marking them, clearing them of snow, etc - and it has the duty and authority to keep the streets as safe as possible. So, in that capacity the govt puts a few conditions on people who bring a vehicle onto the streets, and whoever wants to bring a vehicle onto the streets must comply.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges with this arguement. The terms you are using are those as defined in the CVC. Please provide a cite, code, or case law that backs up the aforementioned statement. Specifically one that has not been appealed and that expressly states I cannot travel in my own personal automobile in my own personal conveyance on private business and that in doing the aforementioned I am subject to the CVC.

The following cites pretty much throw your statement regarding compliance with regulations out the window:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

and further...

"Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary , 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Nobody has pointed to a legal authority for a particular word that describes operating a vehicle for (specifically) noncommercial purposes.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491 (1966):

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

This seems pretty self explanatory. Also you may want to review 1st American Jurisprudence for definitions of "travel" and "traveler".

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Despite all the talk about "the right to travel", the courts have not said that this refers to or creates an enforceable right to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without a DL.

You are so very correct, Shoonra! Operating a motor vehicle falls under the purview of the CVC. Again, apples and oranges.

Unless you can argue using the terms we are referring to and not those listed in the CVC, it appears this arguement is moot.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Codee

I use the term driving and driver too. Shoonra could be correct. Each state has different definitions for these terms. So someone saying what the term means without doing a carefull analysis of the code the term appeared in has made a serious presumption as to the definition of the term.

Good call, Cody. Since most of Shoonra's posts are in direct response to yours, I made the assumption that the arguement was based on the CVC. My bad.

However, I find that being in the habit of using "traveling" in most discussions versus "driving" clearly distinguishes my viewpoint and keeps me away from "slipping" and using the latter term in a situation that could be used against me. Although the definitions of "driver" and "driving" vary from State to State, to the best of my knowledge "traveling" doesn't.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

I do not believe that this quote is accurate. I believe it is an opinion of someone's who read the case.

I double-checked this and it is a TRUE and accurate quotation from the brief named. It was not repeated in the Court's decision but it was, as quoted, in the US DOJ's brief to the Supreme Court in that case.

Some people may find it ironic that Codee is doubting the accuracy of other people's quotes.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

However, I find that being in the habit of using "traveling" in most discussions versus "driving" clearly distinguishes my viewpoint and keeps me away from "slipping" and using the latter term in a situation that could be used against me. Although the definitions of "driver" and "driving" vary from State to State, to the best of my knowledge "traveling" doesn't.

You might want to look up State v. Davis (Mo.App., Feb. 5, 1988) 745 SW2d 249:

On appeal, [Thor] Davis alleges that the statute requiring he obtain a valid operator's license, as a predicate to being allowed to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways, violates his constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom to travel.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. .... At trial, Davis said, "I freely admit that I do not have a driver's license. I will tell the Court that I do not intend to get a driver's license because I feel that it is against my religious beliefs." Davis declared that he was merely "traveling in a conveyance" rather than "driving a motor vehicle." When asked by the judge whether he was claiming he was not "turning the wheel and operating the brake pedal and operating the accelerator," Davis replied, "No, I'm not."

.... [Davis] contends that he was not operating a motor vehicle, but was merely "traveling in a conveyance" when arrested, and therefore, he did not violate the statute. His reasoning for this premise is that the statute in question is for the purpose of regulating commerce and has no aplication to individuals who are merely "traveling," is not based on any relevant statute or case precedent, and has no merit. ... [The state's DL law] defines an operator as a person - not a chauffeur - "who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on the highway." .... Since Davis was in actual physical control of the pickup truck, he was operating a motor vehicle.

.... We do not question Davis' sincerity, or the validity of his religious beliefs. The State of Missouri, by making the licensing requirements in question, is not prohibiting Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs, or from traveling throughout this land. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a bicycle or horse, or travel as a passengerin an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter. He cannot, however, operate a motor vehicle on the public highways without applying for an possessing a valid operator's license.

One of the judges added a concurring opinion in which he said that Davis' arguments "border on the absurd. Such arguments divert judicial energies and time and, to that extent, erod the rights of others to timely disposition of claims having substance. We have answered the questions presented here once. I would caution those who read this opinion not to assume that such blatant disdain for the rules will always be forgiven...."


This decision has been cited in at least three other cases.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You might want to look up State v. Davis (Mo.App., Feb. 5, 1988) 745 SW2d 249:



One of the judges added a concurring opinion in which he said that Davis' arguments "border on the absurd. Such arguments divert judicial energies and time and, to that extent, erod the rights of others to timely disposition of claims having substance. We have answered the questions presented here once. I would caution those who read this opinion not to assume that such blatant disdain for the rules will always be forgiven...."


This decision has been cited in at least three other cases.

Unfortunately Shoonra, I don't think your single cite holds a candle to the one's mentioned in my previous post - which,by the way, I am still awaiting a response to.

Additionally, it should be noted that Davis attempted to argue his cased based on his religious beliefs. If the members of this forum know one thing, it is that the only plausible defense in court for this subject, is dismissal based on subject matter jurisdiction. The State and the courts do not have jurisdiction over private, personal conveyance. Moreover, I didn't see one cite in the documentation for that case that referenced any of the crucial cites I posted. Davis' arguement was flawed and thus led to his loss.

[Big Al]

Funny isn't it? How we forget the question establishes the answer. Your right the question was poor.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

Unfortunately Shoonra, I don't think your single cite holds a candle to the one's mentioned in my previous post - which,by the way, I am still awaiting a response to.... Moreover, I didn't see one cite in the documentation for that case that referenced any of the crucial cites I posted.

As far as I can tell, none of the cases you cited addressed the topic of drivers licenses.

The Chicago Motor Coach case (for which you gave an erroneous cite) involved a city's attempt to give one bus line a monopoly to the exclusion of other bus companies.

The other cases didn't even mention anything with wheels:

The Shapiro case was about welfare laws that tried to exclude newcomers to the state.
The Murdock (not Murdook) case involved a city's attempt to require a license and fee for house-to-house missionary activity by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Shuttlesworth involved the legality of participating in a civil rights sit-down demonstration in segregated restaurants.
Miranda involved the police sweating a confession out of a suspect.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

Good call, Cody. Since most of Shoonra's posts are in direct response to yours, I made the assumption that the arguement was based on the CVC. My bad.

However, I find that being in the habit of using "traveling" in most discussions versus "driving" clearly distinguishes my viewpoint and keeps me away from "slipping" and using the latter term in a situation that could be used against me. Although the definitions of "driver" and "driving" vary from State to State, to the best of my knowledge "traveling" doesn't.

My point is that in california "drive" means precisely what she said it did. You need to look at the code definitions.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I double-checked this and it is a TRUE and accurate quotation from the brief named. It was not repeated in the Court's decision but it was, as quoted, in the US DOJ's brief to the Supreme Court in that case.

Some people may find it ironic that Codee is doubting the accuracy of other people's quotes.

Why? What quote of mine is inaccurate?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Nobody has pointed to a legal authority for a particular word that describes operating a vehicle for (specifically) noncommercial purposes.

The word is "enjoyment."