A RIGHT CANNOT BE TRADED FOR A PRIVILEGE

     This article was inspired by a forum conversation which can be found HERE. The conversation centers around the ideology and legal theory of the right to 'travel' without a license. Many people, including myself before I came to a new understanding, believe that by accepting a license, a registration, or benefits we somehow lost our unalienable rights or traded them in for a public contract benefit. This is not true at all. What is more accurate to say is that by accepting these government ID's, licenses, benefits, etc., we agreed to an administrative regulatory scheme that comes with government created legal rights, duties and obligations. 

     As posted in the article linked above, here is a few supporting cases from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that back this legal theory:

• Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 271 U.S. 583 (1926): State may deny a highway‐use privilege, but it may not attach a condition that violates the Constitution—here, forcing a private carrier to assume the burdens of a common carrier as the price of a permit. This is classic unconstitutional conditions language. Justia Law
• Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943): A flat license tax on door-to-door religious literature distribution is unconstitutional; the government cannot require a paid license to exercise First Amendment freedoms. A license regime cannot supersede speech/religion. Justia Law
• Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002): Ordinance requiring a permit to engage in door-to-door advocacy violates the First Amendment; prior-permission licensing cannot stand where it burdens core speech. Justia Law
• Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963): Denial of unemployment benefits because the claimant observed her Sabbath imposed an unconstitutional burden on free exercise; the State cannot condition benefits on surrender of religious practice without meeting strict scrutiny. Justia Law
• Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981): Reinforces Sherbert—State may not deny unemployment benefits for refusing work inconsistent with religious faith; benefits cannot be used to coerce waiver of First Amendment rights. Justia Law
• Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958): State could not condition a tax exemption on taking a loyalty oath; the government may not leverage benefits to suppress or burden protected expression. Justia Law
• Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972): Public employer may not deny a government benefit (continued public employment) on a basis that infringes free speech; lack of tenure is irrelevant to the First Amendment claim. This is a principal modern statement of the doctrine. Justia Law
• Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967): Anti-subversive employment conditions for public teachers violated the First Amendment; public employment cannot be conditioned on relinquishing protected beliefs/associations. Justia Law
• Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013): Government cannot require funding recipients to adopt and affirm the government’s viewpoint as a condition of receiving funds; compelled-speech conditions on grants violate the First Amendment. Justia Law
• Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974): Welfare durational-residency requirements penalizing the constitutional right to interstate travel are unconstitutional; benefits cannot be conditioned in ways that burden fundamental rights. Justia Law+1
• Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971): A driver’s license is a protected interest; the State must afford due process before suspension. Government licensing does not erase due-process protections; it triggers them. Justia Law
• Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967): Government may not compel employees to waive the Fifth Amendment on pain of losing their jobs; public employment cannot be conditioned on surrendering the privilege against self-incrimination. Justia Law
• Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013): Government cannot condition land-use permits on monetary or property exactions that fail nexus/rough-proportionality; permit power cannot be used to coerce waiver of constitutional protections. Justia Law

Q: Does this mean we can drive without a license and registration without consequence of law?

A: NO

Explanation:

     It is always one's choice whether they want to drive their vehicle without a license and tags. It can and has been done. The practical application of it is very stressful and typically a losing battle even if a few skirmishes are won in the process. I've had personal experience with this matter in 2013 and have gotten it through court but an $80 fine was still ordered plus the impound fees needed to be paid. Though it was a far cry from the original possible sentence of a year in jail and $3,000 in fines, it was not a 'win' so to speak. The fact in this situation is, had the car been put back on the road even though it was held in a private trust, the operator of the vehicle would have gone through this same traffic stop/impound procedure many more times. In the end, it's just not worth the time and what kind of money is it really saving? Nowhere near the amount of money it cost in time and filings at the courthouse not to mention impound fees. 

    So where is the clash between the constitutionally protected right to 'travel' and the driver's license being in contradiction to it? The answer to that is in public safety. The state has the duty to provide public health, safety and welfare. This is where constitutional protections get narrow. The framers of the constitution could not possibly have conceived all of the future needs society would have in the future and to write protections for all of them. Even their best attempt would've caused the constitution to be hundreds of pages long. The constitution was written broadly to be expanded and contracted to accommodate public growth and needs. 

Here is my A.I.'s (fine tuned for precision legal query) answer to that question:

     The Constitution protects a fundamental right to travel; it does not guarantee a right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads free of safety regulation. States may require licensing, registration, insurance, and compliance with traffic rules as reasonable, mode-specific regulations under the police power; those regulations cannot penalize interstate migration or force waiver of constitutional rights. Justia Law+1

Controlling principles

1. Right to travel vs. manner of travel. The Court protects interstate movement and prohibits penalties on new residents, but it has long upheld motor-vehicle licensing/registration as valid safety regulation. Result: you may travel, but the State can require a license to drive on public highways. Justia Law+3
2. Due process attaches once the license issues. A driver’s license becomes a protected interest; suspension or revocation demands notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard geared to the statutory grounds. Summary action can be allowed for repeat violators if prompt, adequate post-deprivation review exists. Justia Law+1
3. Financial-responsibility regimes are permissible. States may condition continued licensure on insurance, bonds, or satisfaction of judgments arising from crashes without offending the right to travel. Justia Law

Key cases (all Justia)
• Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915) — upholds state power to regulate and tax the use of motor vehicles on public highways. Justia Law
• Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916) — confirms broad authority to regulate highway use, including nonresident process rules, as part of licensing/registration. Justia Law
• Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) — driver’s license is a significant interest; State must provide due process keyed to the statute’s liability standard before suspension. Justia Law
• Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977) — repeated violations can justify summary suspension if followed by sufficient administrative review under due process. Justia Law
• Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941) — upholds suspension for failure to satisfy crash judgments and for lack of proof of future financial responsibility. Justia Law
• Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), and Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) — right to travel bars durational-residency penalties; these cases police migration burdens, not safety licensing. Justia Law+1

Bottom line
     A driver’s license does not contradict the right to travel because the right protects movement, while licensing regulates a hazardous method of travel for safety. The State may license drivers and enforce financial-responsibility rules, but it must supply due process for deprivations and may not impose conditions that penalize interstate migration or compel waiver of constitutional rights.

The Solution:

Due process is the solution to our constitutionally protected right to travel. Knowing how to handle ourselves respectfully, correctly, and with knowledge at a traffic stop means everything for our defense. I learned from criminal defense attorneys who actually confirmed what I knew more than taught me the following:

• Window down, hands visible, interior lights on at night.
• Mandatory hand-over on request: driver’s license, registration, insurance. No extra commentary.
• Minimal speech rule: “Officer, with all due respect I've been advised by counsel not to answer any questions without an attorney present. I choose to remain silent. I am not answering questions.”
• Cause: "Can I ask why you pulled me over?" (they have a duty to answer; the driver does not)
• Suspicion rule: "Do you have any reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime?" If yes, "do you have any reasonable articulable fact of a crime?
• Scope control: “Am I free to leave?” If no, you are detained; stop talking except to comply with lawful, specific commands.
• Consent rule if asked to search vehicle or person: “I do not consent to any searches.” Do not obstruct; simply refuse consent.
• Passenger ID: provide only if state law requires passengers to identify during a lawful stop; otherwise: “I don’t wish to provide ID.”
• Recording: you may audio/video record from a safe position without interference. State you are recording if asked; keep phone in plain view.
• Exit order: comply if ordered to exit the vehicle; restate non-consent to any search.
• K-9/mission creep: “I do not consent to prolonging the stop. Please either issue the citation or allow me to go.”
• Field sobriety tests: voluntary in many states; you may decline. Chemical tests post-arrest are governed by implied-consent statutes with civil/criminal consequences; choose knowing the penalties in your state.
• Receipt rule: accept citation, say nothing about guilt, sign if required “promise to appear,” not an admission. Preserve objections for court.

     The above due process procedures put us well on our way to against almost anything; even the against the reason they pulled us over. This is not about being let go or not getting a ticket etc. The officers will continue to do what they are going to do regardless of your due process rights. From my experience, many of them are simply uneducated in due process protections and will violate you at will. That is precisely why the above protocol is absolutely necessary to ensure our true right to travel unobstructed.

     After the traffic stop, the rest is up to us to prove in court that we have been violated. If we have not actually been violated, then we continue in court with due process through our objections and challenges to personal and subject matter jurisdiction and proper court filings such as pretrial motions, affidavits, discovery, etc. Those topics will be expanded in other articles. 

     If we use these grounded due process legal procedures, we will get much further in protecting our freedom than using fringe theories such as internet social media promoted "right to travel". Stay informed, get educated, and implement with confidence!

~ Robert Michael