Right to Drive on Public Roads Driver - Black's 4th One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. TRANSPORTATION CODE TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC SUBTITLE A. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES CHAPTER 502. REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS (16) “Owner” means a person who: (A) holds the legal title of a vehicle (B) has the legal right of possession of a vehicle: or (C) has the legal right of control of a vehicle. (24) “Vehicle” means a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 625, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 586, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005. A driver's license is required for all persons "driving" a vehicle. A wagon, with horses, is considered a vehicle. So why are Amish people not required to register their "vehicle," and to have a driver's license when driving on public roads?
So why are Amish people not required to register their &quot;vehicle,&quot; and to have a driver's license when driving on public roads? The Texas registration requirement in Texas is at Sec. 502.040. REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE: a) Not more than 30 days after purchasing a vehicle or becoming a resident of this state, the owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for: (1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and (2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year. (emphasis added) Now, you might argue that this requires owners of motor vehicles also to register their non-motorized vehicles, but I doubt that this is the prevailing interpretation. Regardless, an Amish person who does not own a motor vehicle is certainly not required by this subsection to register horse-drawn vehicles. Similarly, the requirement to hold a driver's license is at Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED: A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter. (emphasis added) Similarly, this requirement does not apply to the operation of a horse-drawn vehicle. In other words, one statement in your question is incorrect: A driver's license is required for all persons &quot;driving&quot; a vehicle. In fact, a driver's license is generally required to drive a motor vehicle (and even there, exceptions exist).
Until it runs out of gas. With the caveat that I can't prove a negative: No, there is no such statute or case law restricting how long a police or law enforcement vehicle can follow someone on a road. However, law enforcement officers can be subject to investigation and sanction under "stalking" or "harassment" laws, which typically require a pattern of documented misbehavior in the absence of good cause for said behavior.
In general, people have less expectation of privacy in cars than in their homes. To challenge a search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a person must have standing - the right to sue (that is, you must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the search happened; if you didn't, no standing - can't claim your privacy was violated if you had no privacy). The US Circuit Courts are split on the issue of unauthorized rental drivers and whether they have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as the authorized driver of a rental car would have. Some Circuits allow the unauthorized driver to challenge a car search if the authorized driver gave them permission. Some Circuits look only at the agreement and if the driver isn't authorized on that, they're out of luck. The 6th Circuit is more case-by-case, with a presumption that driver can't challenge the search that can be overcome based on the facts. (All this info from US v. Haywood, 324 F.3d 514) There's a current case before the Supreme Court (argued January 9, 2018), Byrd v. US, on this very issue. This SCOTUSblog page has a lot of information on the case. Edited to add: Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which follows the rule that unauthorized drivers don't have standing to challenge a search/seizure even with the authorized driver's permission to drive the car; unauthorized drivers of rental cars don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they lack a possessory interest in the car and/or they're violating the rental agreement. Basically, even though it seems the cops' stop of the car would've violated the Fourth Amendment if he were the authorized driver, since this happened in Texas, he's not going to be able to challenge the stop. IMO, this is incredibly unjust especially when the cops admitted there was no probable cause, so hopefully the Supreme Court makes this rule obsolete and allows unauthorized drivers to exercise their Fourth Amendment rights. Some law review articles on the topic of unauthorized rental drivers: "Hertz and the Fourth Amendment" "Resolving a Three-Way Circuit Split"
Apparently, people are citing these cases for the proposition that there is a right to drive a car without a license (several facebook accounts making this claim have been shut down and a document making this argument is signed with the Biblical name of God). This is frivolous poppycock reserved for conspiracy theory crackpots that also never works. A lawyer who tried to make an argument like this in court would probably be sanctioned by the trial court judge for making a frivolous argument, and might even risk suspension of his license to practice law, unless he made clear that he was arguing for a change in the law that is not supported by any current law. Like all rights, the right to travel, including the right to travel by motor vehicle, is subject to reasonable restrictions which include the requirement that one have a driver's license that is currently valid. No court has ever held that having a traffic code regulating the use of motor vehicles on public roads is unconstitutional, nor has any court every held that the government may not obstruct public roads in a reasonable manner for purposes such as maintenance, parades, and the like. The question in People v. Horton (the correct citation to which is 14 Cal.App.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666 and not the one cited that conflates two separate citations in different reporters to the same case), entered by an intermediate appellate court in California on January 29, 1971, is whether a search of an occupant of a motor vehicle requires probable cause under the 4th Amendment as incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states, and under parallel California constitutional provisions, and it hold that even occupants of motor vehicles have a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy despite the exigent circumstances associated with a motor vehicle. A more complete quotation from the case states: Applying these principles to the instant case, we are impelled to conclude that Officer Winfrey did not have legal cause to stop appellant's automobile. Appellant was driving within the legal speed limits, not erratically, and there were no visible operational defects on the vehicle. Furthermore, although the officer observed two young passengers in the vehicle, he saw no furtive or suspicious movements and he had no information that the youths were being kidnaped, detained or molested in any manner. In fact, the only reason given by Winfrey for stopping appellant was that appellant was driving a vehicle along the streets of Modesto at 1:15 in the morning with two young passengers and that he did not look old enough to be their parent or guardian. Clearly, even if we should assume that what the officer observed constituted unusual activity, and it is difficult to make such an assumption in this modern age, the activity alone did not suggest that it was related to criminality. The Attorney General argues that Officer Winfrey had reasonable cause to stop appellant's vehicle on suspicion that appellant was aiding and abetting his two young passengers to loiter in violation of the municipal ordinance of the City of Modesto. However, driving along city streets, even at 1:15 in the morning, is not “loitering.” (In re Cregler, 56 Cal.2d 308, 312 [14 Cal.Rptr. 289, 363 P.2d 305]; In re Hoffman, 67 Cal.2d 845, 853 [64 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353].) For all that Officer Winfrey knew, appellant could have been driving his two young passengers home from a theater or other authorized place of amusement. We are not insensitive to the numerous problems which face police officers on patrol in a mechanized nation. As we stated in Bramlette v. Superior Court, 273 Cal.App.2d 799, 804 [78 Cal.Rptr. 532], “[t]he use *934 of the automobile in criminal activity has vastly increased the possibility of unlawful conduct, and the likelihood of escape by criminals from the scene of their crimes.” Moreover, we are cognizant of the fact that the great majority of police officers assume the grave responsibility which our society has foisted upon them in a courageous and conscientious manner. Nonetheless, the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts. Consequently, while we do not censure Officer Winfrey or question his motives, the fact remains that he stopped appellant's vehicle solely because it was occupied by young people. Were we to condone the stopping of vehicles for this reason alone, no matter how altruistic the officer's motive might be, we would lend our approval to the creation of a second class citizenry; we would also contribute to an already deteriorating relationship between the youth of America and law enforcement officials; in a free nation this relationship must be based on mutual confidence and respect. Having decided that Officer Winfrey did not have probable cause to stop appellant's vehicle in the first instance, it follows that the subsequent search was unlawful, even though consented to by appellant, and that all evidence adduced therefrom was the product of an unlawful search. As our Supreme Court said in People v. Haven, 59 Cal.2d 713, 718, 719 [31 Cal.Rptr. 47, 381, P.2d 927]: “A search or seizure made pursuant to a valid consent before any illegal police conduct occurs is obviously not a product of illegal conduct. A search and seizure made pursuant to consent secured immediately following an illegal entry or arrest, however, is inextricably bound up with the illegal conduct and cannot be segregated therefrom.” The case of People v. Franklin, 261 Cal.App.2d 703 [68 Cal.Rptr. 231], is squarely in point. There, as here, the officer stopped the defendant's vehicle without probable cause, and afterward defendant consented to the search which ultimately uncovered marijuana. The court in reversing the conviction, at page 707 of the opinion, had this to say: “The stop having been illegal, the search, though by consent of the vehicle owner, does not breathe legality into the resultant find by the officers.” A later California case before the same intermediate appellate court a few years later, also distinguished People v. Horton, holding that while driving in a car as a juvenile as 1:15 a.m. was not "loitering" that similar conduct did violate a municipal curfew ordinance for minors which was validly enacted and not unconstitutional. In re Francis W., 117 Cal. Rptr. 277 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1974). The claim that People v. Horton recognizes a constitutional right to drive without a license was analyzed and rejected in the case of Newman v. Garcia, 2016 WL 8939133, Case No. 3:16-cv-137-J-PDB (M.D. Fl. September 26, 2016) in which a federal trial court ruled on a motion to dismiss a civil rights claim brought by a man alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested for driving with a suspended driver's license in which he sought $28 million of damages. The judge in that case held in pages 3-5 of the Slip Opinion that dismissed this claim that: Right to Travel Newman primarily argues Officer Garcia violated his constitutional right to travel by issuing him a citation for driving with a suspended license and stopping him from driving his car. See generally Doc. 2, Doc. 12. He contends he has a protected liberty interest in driving on public highways, he does not need a license to drive, and a driver's license is a contract between the state and a person that is cancelled when the state suspends a license. Doc. 12 at 3–4, 7. In Kent v. Dulles, the United States Supreme Court explained the right to travel—the freedom to move “across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well”—is “part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958). It has long been recognized as a basic constitutional right. Att'y Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 901 (1986). “A state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” Id. at 903 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A restriction on one method of travel does not violate a person's constitutional rights. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no constitutional right to the “most convenient form of travel.” City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir. 1982). *4 The constitutional right to travel does not include a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); Miller, 176 F.3d at 1206 (9th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court has recognized a state's power to “prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915). That includes passing legislation requiring drivers to have licenses. Id. Such a regulation is “but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens.” Id. Newman cites many state-court cases he contends support his argument he has a right to drive without a license. See Doc. 12 at 3–4. They do not. See People v. Horton, 92 Cal. Rptr. 666, 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (addressing legality of traffic stop and search; observing, “The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts” (emphasis added)); Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 137–38 (Ariz. 1963) (addressing state law suspending license of uninsured motorist involved in an accident who does not post sufficient security); Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d 869, 871, 872 (R.I. 1958) (addressing state law suspending license for failure to deposit security with the registrar; observing, “[T]he right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state”); Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W.2d 493, 495–96 (Tex. 1946) (addressing ordinance regulating operation of taxicabs); Teche Lines, Inc., v. Danforth, 12 So. 2d 784, 785, 787 (Miss. 1943) (addressing state law regulating stopping on certain portion of highway; observing right to travel “may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police power of the State”); Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583 (Va. 1930) (addressing contention city could not change ordinance to permit revocation of license; observing, “regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part ... by granting, refusing, and revoking ... permits to drive an automobile on its streets”); Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 P. 1075 (Kan. 1890) (addressing ordinance restricting use of bicycles on sidewalks and a bridge).4 Newman does not cite authority to support his contention a driver's license is a contract with the state that is cancelled when the license is suspended, and he does not explain how the existence of a cancelled contract would support his argument that Officer Garcia violated his constitutional rights. See generally Doc. 12. Other courts have rejected similar arguments as meritless or frivolous. See Oliver v. Long, No. CV-06-2429-PCT-LOA, 2007 WL 1098527, at *5 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2007) (unpublished) (argument that by cancelling all contracts with California Department of Motor Vehicles plaintiff could violate traffic laws with impunity “frivolous,” “specious,” and “nonsensical”); North Carolina v. Ellison, 471 S.E. 2d 130, 131 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) (argument that by cutting up license and returning it to Division of Motor Vehicles plaintiff had rescinded contract with state and could drive without complying with statutory requirements “without merit”). Absent authority to support the argument that a suspended driver's license is a cancelled contract with the state, and in light of states' authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on their roads, the argument is meritless. *5 Though Newman enjoys a constitutional right to travel, he has no fundamental right to drive. A state may regulate the operation of vehicles on its roads, including requiring a license. Officer Garcia informed him of the suspension and informed him of the consequences of driving with a suspended license but did not restrict his right to travel by other means of transportation. The complaint does not plausibly allege Officer Garcia violated Newman's right to travel The other two cases cited, in addition to the flaws noted below, also predate the U.S. Supreme Court's conclusion that a state has the power to “prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915), including passing legislation requiring drivers to have licenses. Id. Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779 is an opinion from a Delaware state trial court entered on February 27, 1907 (111 years ago as I write this). It held that at the time, in Delaware, on the public highway in question, both cars and pedestrians had an equal right to use the road and both had a duty of care in the contexts of a lawsuit against the car owner for causing an accident through negligence. It did not reference any fundamental or constitutional right and has no precedential value and has in any case been superseded by statute. Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236 is an opinion from a Delaware state trial court entered on December 13, 1905 also involving liability for an automobile accident. It says in the pertinent part: A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public streets of a city as a vehicle of any kind. In using any parts of the streets all persons are bound to the exercise of, reasonable care to prevent collisions and accidents. Such care must be in proportion to the danger or the peculiar risks in each case. It is the duty of a person operating an automobile, or any other vehicle, upon the public streets of a city, to use ordinary care in its operation, to move it at a reasonable rate of speed, and cause it to slow up or stop if need be, where danger is imminent, and could, by the exercise of reasonable care, be seen or known in time to avoid accident. Greater caution is required at street crossings and in the more thronged streets of a city than in the less obstructed streets in the open or suburban parts. Like Simeone, it predates the adoption of a statutory traffic code in the state of Delaware, has no precedential effect, is no longer good law, and does not purport to establish any fundamental or constitutional right. It merely enunciates the default rules governing the use of public highways by cars and pedestrians in the absence of other laws or regulations.
Despite the lengthy background, the only question seems to be: Can a police officer lie about a consequence of a traffic violation they charge you with? As a matter of constitutional law in the United States, that answer is generally &quot;yes.&quot; States can impose more limitations if they like. Only a small minority of states actually do so. Incidentally, an attorney, such as a deputy district attorney, is not allowed to lie about the consequences of a traffic violation, or anything else (even in extreme circumstances like a hostage situation). This violates the rules of professional conduct applicable to all attorneys. This sounds like a classic &quot;driving while black&quot; situation and is probably involves unconstitutional discrimination by a government official, although proving that in an individual case is virtually impossible.
Traffic tickets are not equity law. This said, equity has not been done away with. It has merged with law in almost all states, and in some states, equitable defenses are available to legal claims (although in others equitable defenses are only available to equitable claims).
Racing parts generally lack EWG certification and thus roadworthiness certificates A part needs to have an EWG registration number matching to the type of vehicle to be allowed to be used on a street-legal motorcycle. If a part has non street-legal parts, its whole registration usually is void. Driving a vehicle without a valid registration is illegal and generally not insured. Please check the regulator or the general information of insurance companies about what replacement parts have to comply with. Your insurance agency usually can help you too.
The critical consideration is that the permitted left turn must be onto a one-way roadway in that direction. One is not permitted to perform a left turn which involves crossing traffic from the left, which would also imply that it is not a one-way roadway.