Is it legal to keep an old hole-punched driver&#39;s license or permit? It is illegal in Oregon to possess two drivers licences, but when you get a new one, the DMV hole-punches the old one and gives it back to you. The paper temporary license is valid for driving privileges but not for ID in all circumstances. The DMV employee told me they &quot;recommend&quot; that I destroy my instruction permit and temporary license after my permanent license arrives on the mail. Is it legal in Oregon to keep a hole-punched driver's license or permit after it has been replaced?
ORS 807.550 says &quot;A person commits the offense of holding multiple licenses if the person applies for and accepts a license or driver permit, other than an instruction driver permit, when the person holds an existing license or driver permit&quot;. There is a corresponding regulation Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division 735-062-0096 elaborates, procedurally (1) When DMV issues an interim driver card or an interim identification card to an applicant under OAR 735-062-0094, DMV will invalidate and return the driver license, driver permit or identification card the applicant surrendered. An invalidated driver license or driver permit may not be used as proof of driving privileges, but is not deemed cancelled under ORS 801.175. (2) DMV will invalidate a surrendered driver license, driver permit or identification card by hole-punching the card. (3) The invalidated driver license, driver permit or identification card must be destroyed by the applicant when: (a) A valid driver license, driver permit or identification card issued and mailed by DMV is received by the applicant; or (b) Driving privileges or rights to an identification card have been suspended, cancelled or revoked. This suggests that it is possible that your mutilated, invalidated permit is returned but you are not in possession of a replacement, for example the new license is not mailed to you at the same time as the cancelled one is mailed back. At any rate, it is not legal to keep the old cancelled one, and still have its replacement.
I'm assuming you are talking about something like this You didn't specify where you live, but in many places it is illegal to block the sidewalk with a car. I just looked up my local ordinances and it is there. In fact, it is your driveway, but often the land up to and including the sidewalk is considered part of a public easement. Typically you are required by law to maintain any grass in the easement, but if the sidewalk were to fall into disrepair, the local government would fix it. Information on easements can also be found in your local ordinances, here is an example in my area. Should I fight this ticket? You can try, but I doubt you will win. Is there anything I can do to my driveway to allow me to actually use it? I would suggest asking on Lifehacks. And post a link here to your question if you do, I'd be curious to know what they come up with.
I think it's important to keep in mind the essence of your actions. @Mowzer gave a great answer on the matter in hand, but I'd like to add a point of view. Is it illegal to eat while driving? Like pointed out by @Mowzer, if no law prohibits it, it's allowed by default (lots of countries have this premise). But what about the consequences of your actions? Maybe there's no law against eating in the car, but there sure is one in my country that specific says that you are not allowed to drive without using both hands in the wheel. The only exception to this rule is to take out your hand from the wheel to use the stick to change gears. Another point of view to add is the liability. Let's say you're minding your own business while driving and a lunatic trying to commit suicide jumps in front of your car. It's a pretty straight-forward case, you have no reason to be blamed. Now, let's add to the same scenario your snack; with a small change, you are now facing a accident that may have been caused by reckless driving (another thing commonly illegal). To sum up, the law is not really like math that have axioms that determine true or false statements without any distinguishment. That's why every case is single handled in the law by it's particularities.
Tennessee Code 55-50-301 (a) (1): No person, except those expressly exempted in this section, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a valid driver license under this chapter for the type or class of vehicle being driven; Moreover, under 55-50-504 (a) (1), it is a crime to drive with a revoked license: A person who drives a motor vehicle within the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained that is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel, or the premises of any shopping center, manufactured housing complex or apartment house complex or any other premises frequented by the public at large at a time when the person's privilege to do so is cancelled, suspended, or revoked commits a Class B misdemeanor.
2201.4 Upon a roadway so designated for one-way traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated at all or such times as shall be indicated by official traffic control devices. I'm failing to see the "... except when pulling over for the police" subclause. Equally there is no "... unless you think you should" subclause. If you choose to have a hearing the evidence will show unambiguously that you drove the wrong way in a one way street and you will testify as to your reasons for doing so. For you to avoid the violation you would need to convince the examiner that a) you are telling the truth and b) that your mindset is in any way relevant. Unless the officer clearly directed you to pull into that spot, the decision to do so appears to be yours. I'd pay the fine if it was me.
This is allowed under the police's &quot;community caretaking&quot; function. See South Dakota v. Opperman 428 U.S. 364 (1976): To permit the uninterrupted flow of traffic and in some circumstances to preserve evidence, disabled or damaged vehicles will often be removed from the highways or streets at the behest of police engaged solely in caretaking and traffic control activities. Police will also frequently remove and impound automobiles which violate parking ordinances and which thereby jeopardize both the public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic. The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.
Someone is yanking your chain. The law regarding birth certificates §31-10-9 states that "A certificate of birth for each live birth which occurs in this state shall be filed with the State Office of Vital Records within five days after such birth and filed in accordance with this Code section and regulations of the department" ("shall" means it is mandatory). The law regarding issuing certified copies of vital records, §31-10-26, says that (a) In accordance with Code Section 31-10-25 and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto: (1) The state registrar or local custodian, upon receipt of a written application, shall issue: (A) A certified copy of a vital record in that registrar's or custodian's custody or abstract thereof to any applicant having a direct and tangible interest in the vital record (a parent has an obvious direct and tangible interest in their child's birth certificate). There is no legal basis for denying a person the right to obtain a birth certificate, and a law prohibiting issuance of a birth certificate to a person who owed money to a hospital would be contrary to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. However, the hospital is not obligated to give copies of birth certificates, and probably cannot issue a certified copy ("(d) No person shall prepare or issue any certificate which purports to be an original, certified copy or duplicate of a vital record except as authorized in this chapter or regulations adopted under this chapter"). USCIS states that "The only birth certificate acceptable for Form I-9 purposes must be an original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a state, county, municipal authority or outlying possession of the United States, bearing an official seal (hospitals register births, on which basis government registrars certify births). Your home country obviously cannot issue a birth certificate: only Georgia can (and must).
Since this apparently amends the law giving colleges and universities the power to adopt and enforced various regulations, what it really means is that if such an institution adopts a rule in violation of this law, it may not legally enforce that law. It might also give an affected student a right to sue if such a rule is adopted and enforced. As a comment by ohwilleke mentions, such a law might well authorize a court to issue an injunction forbidding the institution from enforcing the kind of rule prohibited by the law. Note that it is not at all uncommon to have &quot;or else&quot; provisions in different sections of the law. For example Section 123 of the (hypothetical) New France state code might prohibit having a faked driver's license, section 124 prohibit obtaining a license through false or misleading statements on nthe application, and section 458 say &quot;anyone who violates sections 123, 124, 125, or 126 shall be fined up to $2,000, or imprisoned for up to 1 year, or both, as a court may think just&quot;. Thus it is not always easy to find what penalties, if any, apply to a code section.