Is forced Vehicle Registration unconstitutional

[Dillon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Sometime back i read about a woman in California who got her car tow for having the tags out of date more the 6 months. I can assure that CVC 22651 (o)(1)(a) which allegedly gives the police the power to tow a “motor vehicle” “When a registration expiration date in excess of six months before the date it is found or operated on the highway, public lands, or the offstreet parking facility”


is this a Bill of Attainder. Why?


1. Is a warrant less seizure.

2. Allows police to in affect write there own warrants

3. Property sized is not taken as evidence, but rather as punishment adjudged by the legislature.

4. Assumes guilt and infects punishment.

5. Does not allow for judicial oversight at any time before or after seizure.

6. You literally tried and punished by the legislature.

7. Does not provide for just compensation.


By the way here in California vehicle registration is a “protection service”, that is the money collected primarily pays for enforcement, and not the highways. The DMV removed the chart I was using (always should save info). But if I remember correctly something like 85% the fees collected on registration goes to the Highway Patrol, 10% to the DMV for administration Fees, the cities and counties get a cut of the pie and something like 2% is left over for the highways. Cute a?

As I already explained “This requirement of registration of vehicles is designed for the protection of owners...” See; (Stoddart v. Peirce, 53 Cal.2d 105, 119 [346 P.2d 774People v. Galceran (1960), 178 Cal.App.2d 312, 316 (emphasis added)

the DMV is more than willing to brag about registration being a “protection service” Just search for “protects ownership interests through registration” on the California DMV website and see for your self.

Bearing in mind the old maxim of law “One should never pay for a service one does not want”

Any comments on this information in CA

 

[asiny]

1. Is a warrant less seizure.
As her vehicle was unregistered with the state, as per the state law, it was not allowed to be driven on the roadway (or even parked on a public roadway). Therefore the seizure was allowed.

2. Allows police to in affect write there own warrants
Only if they have proof the vehicle does not meet the legal requirements to be on the road.. i.e. no registration, no insurance (or financial proof of coverage).

3. Property sized is not taken as evidence, but rather as punishment adjudged by the legislature.
Correct. You think she should be told to just register it without being punished? She has already had it unregistered for the last 6 months.. what is the incentive to her to register it if she will face no reprimand for driving a unregistered vehicle?

4. Assumes guilt and infects punishment.
She never registered it for 6 months - if it was a week or so, then she could simply have not had the time or had forgotten, but 6 months? Therefore punishment is a fine and she must register the car.

5. Does not allow for judicial oversight at any time before or after seizure.
The law has already issued that. Hence a law was made to not tie up the court system. Otherwise every time and officer discovered an unregistered vehicle they would have to apply to the court to seize the vehicle. But they can't just let the driver - who is driving an unregistered vehicle - to drive away. Should they just keep them there for as long as it takes to contact the court, set a court date, present the evidence in court, then seize the vehicle... really?

6. You literally tried and punished by the legislature.
Because otherwise the court system would be tied up with these cases. It is clear - based on out-of-date tags and the computer DMV search - that the vehicle is not registered. And, by law, is not legally allowed to be driven on the public roadways.

7. Does not provide for just compensation.
Of course not. Are trying to say the driver - who decided NOT to register their vehicle should be compensated for breaking the law?

By the way here in California vehicle registration is a “protection service”, that is the money collected primarily pays for enforcement, and not the highways. The DMV removed the chart I was using (always should save info). But if I remember correctly something like 85% the fees collected on registration goes to the Highway Patrol, 10% to the DMV for administration Fees, the cities and counties get a cut of the pie and something like 2% is left over for the highways. Cute a?

What they do with the money is [not getting into a tax discussion] what has been approved for the use. Did you know taxes also go toward paying many of the above too?

As I already explained “This requirement of registration of vehicles is designed for the protection of owners...” See; (Stoddart v. Peirce, 53 Cal.2d 105, 119 [346 P.2d 774People v. Galceran (1960), 178 Cal.App.2d 312, 316 (emphasis added)

the DMV is more than willing to brag about registration being a “protection service” Just search for “protects ownership interests through registration” on the California DMV website and see for your self.

I love it when people take a sentence out of context of what is written;

The Department of Motor Vehicles enhances traffic safety through the testing and monitoring of drivers; protects identity by ensuring the integrity of DMV's database and the integrity of the licensing, identification, and registration documents it issues. Protects ownership interests through registration and titling and by regulating vehicle-related businesses under its jurisdiction; supports state agencies and local communities through the collection and distribution of information and revenue.

Bearing in mind the old maxim of law “One should never pay for a service one does not want”

Any comments on this information in CA

Bearing in mind that driving is a privilege and not a right - you don't have to pay for a service you don't want... there are alternatives to being a licenced, car owner/driver.
Public transportation - you don't have to pay registration, but do have to pay to use the service.
Private taxi service - you don't have to pay registration, but do have to pay to use the service.
A bicycle - you don't have to pay registration, but do have to pay to purchased the bike.
Walk - you don't have to pay registration and don't have to pay (financially) to do it.

Though the penalty for driving without a registration can vary from state to state, there is no state in which it’s legal to drive an unregistered vehicle, or a vehicle that was registered but on which the tags have expired.

 

[CdwJava]

As a note, you are not "forced" to register your vehicle. If you choose to operate it on public lands and roadways, then you must register it. If you keep it on your own private property then you do not need to register your vehicle.

See, you DO have a choice.

 

[asiny]

As a note, you are not "forced" to register your vehicle. If you choose to operate it on public lands and roadways, then you must register it. If you keep it on your own private property then you do not need to register your vehicle.

See, you DO have a choice.

Exactly my point - you have alternatives to a legal requirement to register a vehicle.

CdwJava - sorry, but I could not help myself.... must... resist.. feeding.... troll... I'm weak.

 

[CdwJava]

Exactly my point - you have alternatives to a legal requirement to register a vehicle.

CdwJava - sorry, but I could not help myself.... must... resist.. feeding.... troll... I'm weak.

Ditto. I know it's like pounding my head against a wall ... but ... aargh!

 

[Dillon]

1. Is a warrant less seizure.
As her vehicle was unregistered with the state, as per the state law, it was not allowed to be driven on the roadway (or even parked on a public roadway). Therefore the seizure was allowed.

Get a warrant follow the 4th amendment, this is the 21st century, cant a judge fax a warrant to the officer?

2. Allows police to in affect write there own warrants
Only if they have proof the vehicle does not meet the legal requirements to be on the road.. i.e. no registration, no insurance (or financial proof of coverage).

the state has to prove it, its not her burden. innocent till proven guilty. (separation of powers police cant write warrants only juges.)

3. Property sized is not taken as evidence, but rather as punishment adjudged by the legislature.
Correct. You think she should be told to just register it without being punished? She has already had it unregistered for the last 6 months.. what is the incentive to her to register it if she will face no reprimand for driving a unregistered vehicle?

let her be punished by a jury of her peers, follow the law.

4. Assumes guilt and infects punishment.
She never registered it for 6 months - if it was a week or so, then she could simply have not had the time or had forgotten, but 6 months? Therefore punishment is a fine and she must register the car.

again, only a jury can punish not the state. no conviction by jury, means not quilty.

5. Does not allow for judicial oversight at any time before or after seizure.
The law has already issued that. Hence a law was made to not tie up the court system. Otherwise every time and officer discovered an unregistered vehicle they would have to apply to the court to seize the vehicle. But they can't just let the driver - who is driving an unregistered vehicle - to drive away. Should they just keep them there for as long as it takes to contact the court, set a court date, present the evidence in court, then seize the vehicle... really?

YES, maybe if it starts to cost the state some real money to convict her, then maybe registratioin will not be necessary, anymore.

6. You literally tried and punished by the legislature.
Because otherwise the court system would be tied up with these cases. It is clear - based on out-of-date tags and the computer DMV search - that the vehicle is not registered. And, by law, is not legally allowed to be driven on the public roadways.

I dont care how long it takes the court or how much it cost the court, follow the law and get a warrant and have a full trial by jury,

7. Does not provide for just compensation.
Of course not. Are trying to say the driver - who decided NOT to register their vehicle should be compensated for breaking the law?

till a jury convicts her, pay her for the loss of her property, (what is unlawful about moving my private property (my car) on my property (the Roads)

maybe she should charge the state a property use fee for using her car w/o a trial by jury, i mean its her car, Right? the state doesnt own it or have a security interest in her car, Right?

Have a great day and thanks for you comments on the subject.


---------------------------

 

[Mass_Shyster]

You are absolutely correct, it is unconstitutional. Call up Justice Scalia and ask him to fix things for you.

 

[Dillon]

You are absolutely correct, it is unconstitutional. Call up Justice Scalia and ask him to fix things for you.

I couldnt agree with you more.

As her vehicle was unregistered with the state, as per the state law, it was not allowed to be Operated on the roadway (or even parked on a public roadway). Therefore the police seizure was allowed.

the Big Question is: what was the nature of the police seizure, Criminal or Civil?

--------------------

Article the eighth [Amendment VI] - US constitution

In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

see the word ALL above

 

[Dillon]

As a note, you are not "forced" to register your vehicle. If you choose to operate it on public lands and roadways, then you must register it. If you keep it on your own private property then you do not need to register your vehicle.

See, you DO have a choice.

if people cant move their cars on the common easement (the Poeples property/roads) what good will registration really do for them?

------------

"The right of occupancy of the street by the public is a mere easement or right of passage." (State ex rel. Harkow v. McCarthy (1936), 171 So. 314, 316 quoting Lutterloh v. Mayor, etc. of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306, 308)

"It is said that a common-law dedication does not operate as a grant but by way of estoppel in pais. A dedication is regarded not as a transferring a right, but as operating to preclude the owner from resuming his right of private property or from any use inconsistent with the public use. (23 Am Jur 2d, Dedication, s. 56)

Under a common-law dedication, the fee does not pass from the grantor, as the public acquires only a right of easement in trust, so long as the dedicated land is used for the purposes of the dedication. (Florida State Turnpike Authority v Anhoco Corp. (1958), Fla App D3 107 So 2d 51)" (Fla Jur 2d, Dedication, s. 24)

"The right to use a special facility * * * is not an inherent right in the public". "[T]he right of the citizens to travel the public highways (when not exercised as a means of conducting private business thereon) is subject only to the police power and of the power of taxation, and is an inherent right which, in its very essence, is quite a difference from the right to use a special facility * * * erected under a franchise." (Day v. City of St. Augustine (1932), 139 So. 880, 882)) [***]

"There are certain methods by which the public acquires the right to pass and repass over a way thus establishing a highway. Those methods are by prescription or long user as such; by statute or statutory proceedings in the exercise of the right of eminent domain; or by dedication to the public by the owner of the soil with the sanction of the public authorities." * * * "The mere expenditure of public money upon the road under the agreement is not in itself sufficient to establish the highway." (Couture v. Dade County (1927), 112 So. 75, 79) [***]

Extensive discussion of the rights of the public in public streets. McHarge v. Newcomer, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 298, 117 Tenn. 595, 100 S. W. 700. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

There is no substantial difference between streets in which legal title is in private individuals and those in which it is in the public as to the rights of the public therein. Montgomery v. Santa Ana & W. R. Co. 25 L.R.A. 654, 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

The rights of the public in a street are precisely the same, whether the fee to the land is in the public or in the abutting landowner. Kellogg v. Cincinnati Traction Co. 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 158, 80 Ohio 331, 88 N.E. 882. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

The public holds the title to streets and alleys in trust for the use to which they are dedicated when the fee simple vests in the public on the platting of an addition to a city. Jaynes v. Omaha Street R. Co., 39 L.R.A. 751, 53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

The rights of a municipality to the ownership of the fee of the streets are subject to the paramount right of the general public to the use of the streets and their control and improvement as the public interests may require in the discretion of the local municipal authorities. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. West Chicago Park, 25 L.R.A. 300, 151 Ill. 204, 37 N. E. 1079. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

A city holds its streets in trust for the benefit of the public, and cannot authorize their use for the sole and exclusive benefit of private individuals or corporations, to the detriment of the superior right of the public. People ex rel. Mather v. Marshall Field & Co., L.R.A. 1915F, 937, 266 Ill. 609, 107 N. E. 864. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

A municipality may determine the extent and manner of the public use of streets and may regulate the use by owners of the soil; but it cannot arbitrarily take away the property rights of such owners. Colegrove Water Co. v. Hollywood, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 904, 151 Cal. 425, 90 Pac. 1053. (L.R.A. Digest 1888-1918, Highways and Streets, 28.)

"The coporate authorities of a town have no right to appropriate the public streets to any other uses than that of travel or right of way to which they were dedicated and the convenience of the whole public; and they cannot lawfully obstruct the streets with public or private buildings; and any person whose property is especially injured thereby may have the aid of the courts of equity to restrain such improper appropriation." Lutterloh vs. Mayor, &c, of Cedar Key, 15 Fla., 306. (Quoted in Garnett vs. The Jacksonville ... River Railway Co., 20 Fla. 889, 890.)

 

[CdwJava]

Dillon, if you truly feel you are in the right then do not register your vehicle and leave it parked on a road in CA for more than 6 months. When/if it gets towed, then you can test these theories of yours in court.

A note ... they have been tested, and they have lost. But, you are free to play Don Quixote if you'd like.

 

[startedone]

Dillon, if you truly feel you are in the right then do not register your vehicle and leave it parked on a road in CA for more than 6 months. When/if it gets towed, then you can test these theories of yours in court.

A note ... they have been tested, and they have lost. But, you are free to play Don Quixote if you'd like.

I know some judges in NH who would agree with many of the arguments .. none in CA though ...

No need for Carl to pound harder ... either people believe that they are free or they believe they are subjects ...

 

[The Occultist]

I couldnt agree with you more.

I'm pretty sure Steve was being sarcastic...

 

[CdwJava]

I know some judges in NH who would agree with many of the arguments .. none in CA though ...

No need for Carl to pound harder ... either people believe that they are free or they believe they are subjects ...

Even free people need to be subject to laws and regulations lest we have chaos and anarchy. There is nothing UNfree about requiring vehicle registration, driver's licenses, etc. as one is not required to have them. And at least in CA you can own a vehicle without registering it, you just cannot drive it on the public streets.

And even those judges in NH and elsewhere that might be inclined to agree with Dillon's meandering logic, they would almost certainly be overruled on appeal.

 

[Dillon]

Even free people need to be subject to laws and regulations lest we have chaos and anarchy. There is nothing UNfree about requiring vehicle registration, driver's licenses, etc.

its not about requlation, but it could be about control of the people.

REGULATION

"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty."

25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260 and ...

"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission."

Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
Pachard vs. Banton, supra.


One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.

-------------

First, let us consider the reasonableness of a statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:

1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?

The answer is No!

The attempted explanation for regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."

However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.

Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.

2. Is the statute reasonable?

The answer is No!

This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This was exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)

But isn't this what we have now?

The answer is No! Could the real purpose of a license be much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property. (also no ones legal rights were violated)

Could it now be concluded that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

-------------

What do you think, CdwJava ?

 

[justalayman]

We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

again you are wrong dillon. You have all rights to move freely upon the public highways without a license. It's only when you want to use a motor vehicle that you would need a license and register the vehicle.