Right to Travel Court Cites

[Codee]

Section 453 in its entirety provides as follows:
"(a) The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State or any political subdivison thereof or any municipal corporation or district therein including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.
Yarrow v. State of California (1960), 53 Cal.2d 427, 440, 2 Cal.Rptr. 137, 348 P.2d 687
8.c.

Where does it say that the code is applicable to me? I do not see the words "also applicable" which is what the legislature would have said if they wanted the code to "also" be applicable to state empoyess in addition to some other class which was generally understood.

"Pursuant to established principles, our first task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. In determining such intent, a court must look first to the words of the statutes themselves, giving to the language its usual, ordinary import and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided. The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.]"
We are also directed "to produce a reasonable result," while "avoiding those constructions which lead to mischief or absurdity." (People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 997-998.)


75 Ops.Cal.A.G. 75, 77-78, 91-804 (1992).

The absence of the word also is mighty suspect to their intent. Should we look through the past to discover what was the original intent? Also if you constue the entire vehicle code to be applicable to "all drivers" then it makes all of the red part of the following quote surplusage.

"(a) The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State or any political subdivison thereof or any municipal corporation or district therein including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

That's more then half of the only code section which specifically states who the code is applicable to.



I just hope you are seeing Shoonra that I am not using abunch of "I have a right" arguments. These are the way the statutes read! It has nothing to do with CAN the legislature do it, BUT RATHER,,, Did the legislature do it???

NO!!!

I mean why do you think I win all my tickets due to a missing formal complaint? Because no one is going to swear under penalty of perjury that the statute is applicable to me. Some of these cases I win are worth $1300. a formal complaint takes like 1.5hrs. to generate. You do the math. They would be very profitable so why are they not prosecuting me with formal complaint?

Shoonra, my arguments do not rest on what you may have thought. Sometimes I even pretty much agree with you. Please read alittle on my attitude and my beliefs HERE On this thread I am virtualy agreeing with you. However you need to not treat my arguments like they rest on a right to "travel" at all. If you read the thread I posted you will see my attitude on the construction of those citations lots of people are using.

As amatter of fact I think I am even defending your comments at the bottom against Cowboytroll. Oh well. If you want a real discussion I'll have one. But you can not expect me to argue the opinions I do not agree with.

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am aware of the distinction, but I used "steer" because so many people on this forum have their own peculiar notions of what "drive" implies. I would assume that it was clear that I meant what the vast majority of people (outside of this forum) mean when they talk about "driving a car".

The precise meaning of "operating" a motor vehicle is more expansive than driving or steering. A person who is drunk and in the driver's seat of a parked car, with the motor running but the gear in Park or Neutral, can be arrested for "operating" car while under the influence; that the car was not in motion is immaterial.

It may be true, that police can arrest anybody for anything they want at anytime they want without regard for the law or consequence of there actions as they believe they have complete immunity from any and all unlawful action. That may be what you believe also. I'm not into Sheperdizing case law, I prefer looking to what the statues say concerning these actions. I find that when and individual simulates legal process by there actions and generates paper work to support that position, that individual has got a problem. Now I understand that the police in this country do this every day and get away with it, does that mean they are lucky the public is ignorant of the law? I think this is the case.

I think it is the duty of every American to bring the public's servants to Justus every time they violate the constitutional rights of there fellow citizens. This duty is the most important of the duties of the inherent political power holder.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The precise meaning of "operating" a motor vehicle is more expansive than driving or steering. A person who is drunk and in the driver's seat of a parked car, with the motor running but the gear in Park or Neutral, can be arrested for "operating" car while under the influence; that the car was not in motion is immaterial.

Well I would say the opposite. That drive is way more encompassing then "opperate."
The word opperator is no longer defined in the definition section of the vehicle code. Since the code was originaly enated as the "License tax act" I be thinkin' that the tax code might help out with this lost word... What do you think Shoonra. Can we trust the tax code???

9603. "Operator" includes:
(a) Any person engaging in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation by or upon a motor vehicle upon any public highway in this State, either directly or indirectly.(b) Any person who furnishes any motor vehicle for the transportation of persons or property under a lease or rental agreement when pursuant to the terms thereof the person operates the motor vehicle furnished or exercises any control of, or assumes any responsibility for, or engages either in whole or in part in, the transportation of persons or property in the motor vehicle furnished.
"Operator" does not include any of the following:
(a) Any person transporting his own property in a motor vehicle owned or operated by him unless he makes a specific charge for the transportation. This subdivision does not in any way limit any other exemption granted by this section.
Stats. 1941, ch. 39, p. 590.

The either directly or indirectly means just that. You do not even have to be in the same county as the car when an EMPLOYEE is DRIVING it and you can still be "OPPERATING" the car. So opperating has NOTHING to do with physical control anymore.

Looks like from the following however the legislature is still giving Driver's license to Opperate. Driver's License is the name of the document. It is however a license to opperate.

14900.1. (a) Except as provided in Sections 15250.6 and 15255.1,
upon application for the renewal of a driver's license or for a
license to operate a different class of vehicle, there shall be paid to the department a fee of twenty-four dollars ($24) for a license
that will expire on the fifth birthday of the applicant following the
date of the application. The payment of the fee entitles the person
paying the fee to apply for a driver's license and to take three
examinations within a period of 12 months from the date of the
application or during the period that an instruction permit is valid,
as provided in Section 12509.

It s just amazing how little "license to drive" is used. Or for that matter just the word "drive." I guess this little law does not apply to drivers? Why do they not use the word "drive" instead of opperate if it really was a driver's license in any sence more than its name?

2800.1. (a) Any person who, while operating a motor vehicle and
with the intent to evade, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to
elude a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle, is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more
than one year if all of the following conditions exist:

Here they actually are talking about "driving." Or so it would seem. Of course it is talking about someone driving who has violated the above statute on "opperating."

2800.2. (a) If a person flees or attempts to elude a pursuing peace
officer in violation of Section 2800.1 and the pursued vehicle is
driven in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons...

2800.3. (a) Whenever willful flight or attempt to elude a pursuing
peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1

2804. A member of the California Highway Patrol upon reasonable
belief that any vehicle is being operated in violation of any
provisions of this code or is in such unsafe condition as to endanger
any person, may require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit
to an inspection of the vehicle, and its equipment, license plates,
and registration card.

Here they are talking about "no driving" but it only pertains to driving a school bus. Automatically comercial and for employment. But we do see how it is all suspect...Then look at how the driver is qualified as having to do these things after a date of OPPERATION.

2807.3
(b) No person shall drive any youth bus unless there is displayed therein a certificate issued by the Department of the California Highway Patrol stating that on a certain date, which shall be within
13 months of the date of operation,

2810.1. (a) Any traffic officer may stop any commercial vehicle...where the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle is being operated in violation of that act.

JUST LOOK AT HOW OFTEN WHEN THEY DO USE "DRIVE" INSTEAD OF OPPERATE THAT IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS PAIRED UP WITH A "COMMERCIAL VEHICLE." or some other special vehicle like "youth bus" or "passanger vehicle" Ahhh the Law. Got to love it. Because the code don't apply to nothin' else.

2813. Every driver of a commercial vehicle shall stop and submit...

2814. Every driver of a passenger vehicle...

HERE WE GET CLOSE.... The law says any driver of a motor vehicle. But wait and see the law that it is citing!!! Think there will be an "opperate" in it? I DO!!!

2814.1. (a) A board of supervisors of a county may, by ordinance,
establish, on highways under its jurisdiction, a combined vehicle
inspection and sobriety checkpoint program to check for violations of
Sections 27153 and 27153.5 and to identify drivers who are in violation of Section 23140 or 23152. The program shall be conducted
by the local agency or department with the primary responsibility for
traffic law enforcement.
(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to an
inspection conducted under subdivision (a) when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop.

So we are going to need to take a look at what is in subdivision (a) when it is refrencing other codes. Lets take a look at the code 27153.

27153. No motor vehicle shall be operated in a manner resulting...

Well I'm glad that got cleared up! Lets look at more...

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

Where does it say that the code is applicable to me? That's more then half of the only code section which specifically states who the code is applicable to.

You misconstrue this section. What was sec 453 (when enacted in 1935) has been slightly rewritten in 1959 and now is sec 21052 of the California Vehicle Code.

The current section 21052 doesn't have subsections, so when you quote subsection (a) of the old sec. 453, I wonder what subsections (b) and (if it existed) (c) said.

The current text is:

Sec. 21052. Drivers who are public employees; Authorized emergency vehicles.
THe provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

It is clear from the cases that cited this section, including its earlier version, that this section merely means that operators of "official cars" - including police cars and cars belonging to other govt agencies and offices - are expected to comply with the traffic laws, like everyone else, and are not exempted from the traffic laws just because they might have some political connections. The only exceptions are those already allowed, by another section, to emergency vehicles (e.g. amulances, firetrucks, police cars) in actual emergencies.

This section did NOT mean that ONLY govt drivers were governed by the traffic laws. If it did, then the traffic laws would probably have been put in the California Government Code instead of a separate Vehicle Code. The Vehicle Code is a part of the entire California Code and some sections are written so that they must apply to drivers who are not in govt service.

[Codee]

Now lets take a look at 27153.5...

27153.5. (a) No motor vehicle first sold or registered as a new motor vehicle on or after January 1, 1971, shall discharge into the atmosphere at elevation of less than 4,000 feet any air contaminant for a period of more than 10 seconds which is:

This law does not talk about what a person can or cannot do. It is what my car can and cannot do. Hmmm... It does not say that no person can "drive" a car sold after... which is emmitting the emmissions. And when you realy read it and concider shall means must it means no car must pollute. That is good. It would suck if my car "shall discharge." Subtle but it does not say that "Every car shall not..."

Now lwts get in to the laws which use the phrase "to drive" without qualifying it first as "opperating it."

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

This law is actually under the named title "PUBLIC OFFENSES." This is what a cop can arrest you for IF you are opperating. It seems unqualified does'nt it. Just remember this law is in the infamous division 11 discussed just below. Offenses. Not infractions. These offenses are so dangerous that they are actual crimes. Thus we see this strong language in a very small chapter. All of the offenses in this chaper 12 involve drunk driving and bodily injury.

But have no fear drunk lushes. Remember that the codes which refer to this "driver" only apply to state employees and that "opperator" only applies to person Engaged" in employment.

21052. The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

Well lets continue on shall we.

DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
Article 1.
21001. The provisions of this division refer exclusively to the
operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is
specifically referred to.

Realy??? Just the opperation of vehicles??? You don't say!!!! Well this is comming as no suprise. So at this point I see no reason to go through any psrt of this subdivision as it has redicated the entire contents on "opperation."

Here is some from division 12 which has statutes for vehicle standards.

24001. This division and Division 13 (commencing at Section 29000),
unless otherwise provided, applies to all vehicles whether publicly
or privately owned when upon the highways, including all authorized
emergency vehicles.

Sound GENERAL to all right? Nope. It appies only to cars I guess and not to people at all. But ion the event it does applie to "drivers" lets see what the driver cannot do.

24002. (a) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of
vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely
loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard.
(b) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of
vehicles which is not equipped as provided in this code...

24002.5. (a) No person may operate a farm labor vehicle

Here is another BULLS#$T law. Just remember to change all of the shalls to must so your brain perceives it right... Oh what the hell... here is a treat.

(All appeances of "MUST" are in substitution for "shall)24003. No vehicle MUST be equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not required or permitted in this code, nor MUST any lamp or illuminating device be mounted inside a vehicle unless specifically
permitted by this code. This section does not apply to:

Don't believe me??? Here is CVC sec 15.

15. "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

Lets look at the same law with MAY in there. The following is what the Legislature and Cops WANT you to think it says.

(All appeances of "MAY" are in substitution for "shall)24003. No vehicle MAY be equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not required or permitted in this code, nor MAY any lamp or illuminating device be mounted inside a vehicle unless specifically permitted by this code. This section does not apply to:

This is real ladies and Gentleman. THe law of "no person/car shall" as positive does not work!!!!!

[ezrhythm]

Dividing, as does St. 1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual fee of $2, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, is sound classification and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation.
Ex parte Stork (Feb. 24, 1914), 167 Cal. 294

[Codee]

........................Deleted post

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Dividing, as does St. 1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual fee of $2, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, is sound classification and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation.
Ex parte Stork (Feb. 24, 1914), 167 Cal. 294

True. And it never realy changed. But the way it is set up now is that the code only recognizes "drivers" and "opperators" then only applies its self to state empoyee drivers and operators. Weird huh. My point is that NOW driver appears to be an innocent term.

[ezrhythm]

I believe "driver" is innocent as long as you are driving a recreational vehicle and not carrying "passengers" or "cargo" for transport. In other words, not driving in commerce.

DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914)p. 940.

DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951


As far as a right to travel in a vehicle;

California Vehicle Code (1935),

"Section 81. "Street" or "Highway." "Street" or "highway" is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel."

[ezrhythm]

AND THEN it must be proven that you were driving in commerce;

The "evidence" I get $ would be represented by a RECEIPT or Bill of Lading for "hauling" or "transporting". This "evidence" would need to be submitted into evidence by the officer or his attorney to "prove" one is "driving". If there is no evidence in the form of RECEIPTS or Bills of Lading, the officer lacks required evidence to prove his claim that you are one of those "persons" required and regulated by the Vehicle Code. The officer simply can not make a claim in open court without some evidence to sustain his/her allegation/s, or that would be "false swearing", that you are sausage merchant for instance, if you are, in fact, a math teacher, and then compel the court to order you to pay a fine for a sausage merchant violation that has absolutely nothing to do with rules and regulations for math teachers. So if you do the math and you don't come up with the answer: "Sausage Merchant", then the fine CAN NOT apply because the court lacks jurisdiction to order a penalty for something one is not legally obligated to do or not do. If there is no obligation there can be no liability, this is selfevident.

Taken from; http://home.earthlink.net/~venue53/carstuff.html