 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2006driving on a michigan licence in Illinois
if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep my licence, so can i get it back > if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep > my licence, so can i get it back That depends. Do you have a residence in Michigan? If so, then there is no problem driving in Illinois, WITH a Michigan driver's license. It could be technically illegal, being that there is probably some law in Illinois stating that you must get an Illinois license within two weeks (or whatever) of moving to Illinois. HOWEVER, think about this a second . . . if you are pulled over in Illinois . . . In a Michigan car, with Michigan plates, and Michigan registration, and Michigan car insurance and Carrying a valid Michigan driver's license . . . How the HECK is any cop in Illinois going to know that you SHOULD have an Illinois license, unless you are stupid enough to tell him? I've never heard of a traffic stop where a license was confiscated, unless the license was previously suspended or revoked. -Dave > I've never heard of a traffic stop where a license was confiscated, unless > the license was previously suspended or revoked. I believe IL is one of those states that keeps your license until you pay the fine or go to trial. >> if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep >> my licence, so can i get it back [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >How the HECK is any cop in Illinois going to know that you SHOULD have an >Illinois license, unless you are stupid enough to tell him? One clue might be the Illinois plates on your car and the Illinois address on your vehicle registration. ;) >I've never heard of a traffic stop where a license was confiscated, unless >the license was previously suspended or revoked. In IL, they take your driver's license in lieu of bond for traffic offenses. After you show up in court, you get your license back - with little staple holes in it. Don't ask me how I know that. ;) Regarding Tony's original question, I don't know what would happen if he gets stopped with an out-of-state license. Dunno if they can take those in lieu of bond, so he might have to post a cash bond instead. My suggestion to Tony would be to sign up for AAA - IIRC, the membership card can be surrendered as a bond card in place of the driver's license.  SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >In IL, they take your driver's license in lieu of bond for traffic >offenses. After you show up in court, you get your license back - with >little staple holes in it. Don't ask me how I know that. ;) Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you don't have holes in them. ************************* Dave >>In IL, they take your driver's license in lieu of bond for traffic >>offenses. After you show up in court, you get your license back - with >>little staple holes in it. Don't ask me how I know that. ;) > > Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you > don't have holes in them. That was because the thickness of the new licenses. From when the TW was smashed, the a.shole cop was sure to put staple holes in my bond card. I still remember the first time I was ever pulled over. Cop runs his fingers around the edges of my license and says something like 'first ticket?'. When I got my license back I was sure to iron out the staple holes so it was like they were never there. >> Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you >> don't have holes in them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ticket?'. When I got my license back I was sure to iron out the staple > holes so it was like they were never there. Seems like this particular issue would be a GOOD reason to claim that your license was lost, and pay the minimal fee to have the state mail you a new one. Then shred the one with the staple holes when the new one rrives. -Dave >I still remember the first time I was ever pulled over. Cop runs his >fingers around the edges of my license and says something like 'first >ticket?'. Hehe! Yup, the presence (or absence) of staple holes could easily prejudice a cop. >When I got my license back I was sure to iron out the staple >holes so it was like they were never there. I just "lost" mine and got a duplicate. ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>In IL, they take your driver's license in lieu of bond for traffic >>offenses. After you show up in court, you get your license back - with >>little staple holes in it. Don't ask me how I know that. ;) > >Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you >don't have holes in them. LOL!!! I guess too many people complained that they were being stigmatized by all the little holes in their licenses... ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep > my licence, so can i get it back You get it back when you pay. BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they observe your car parked on the street everyday... > BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping > MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they > observe your car parked on the street everyday... Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though? Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it. When you mentioned "city sticker", I did some research. I found the official web site at chicityclerk.com, and I'm still confused. What is the purpose of the "city sticker", other than to royally f.ck Chicago residents on an annual basis? It's almost a hundred bucks a year if purchased on time, more expensive if purchased "late", and proof is required FROM THE PURCHASER to prove that it's not a late purchase. OK, that much I'm clear on. But, why was the sticker law passed in the first place? It has nothing to do with parking, so what was the intent behind the law? -Dave >> BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping >> MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they >> observe your car parked on the street everyday... > > Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though? > Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it. You don't know the chicago revenue machine. People have been so ticketed and complained online in places like chicago CL. > When you mentioned "city sticker", I did some research. I found the > official web site at chicityclerk.com, and I'm still confused. What is the > purpose of the "city sticker", other than to royally f.ck Chicago residents > on an annual basis? It's a tax. So yes, that is the purpose. > It's almost a hundred bucks a year if purchased on > time, more expensive if purchased "late", and proof is required FROM THE > PURCHASER to prove that it's not a late purchase. OK, that much I'm clear > on. But, why was the sticker law passed in the first place? It has nothing > to do with parking, so what was the intent behind the law? -Dave MONEY. >> BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping >> MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they >> observe your car parked on the street everyday... > >Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though? Hard to say. Maybe someone who you cut off in traffic one day might report you just out of spite or revenge? Maybe your neighbor, whose house is smaller and/or not as nice as yours, might report you out of jealousy? >Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it. Absolutely. I personally do not know of any such incidents in IL, but I definitely have seen this happen in CA. >When you mentioned "city sticker", I did some research. I found the >official web site at chicityclerk.com, and I'm still confused. What is the >purpose of the "city sticker", other than to royally f.ck Chicago residents >on an annual basis? It's a TAX. And lots of cities besides Chicago have them. It's especially heinous because it not only costs a non-trivial amount of money, it alsop defaces the appearance of your vehicle. I'm SO glad CA doesn't have them. >It's almost a hundred bucks a year if purchased on >time, more expensive if purchased "late", and proof is required FROM THE >PURCHASER to prove that it's not a late purchase. OK, that much I'm clear >on. But, why was the sticker law passed in the first place? It has nothing >to do with parking, so what was the intent behind the law? To make money, of course. Just as the state makes revenue by charging for license plates, cities in IL make money by charging for city stickers. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > > BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping > > MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they > > observe your car parked on the street everyday... > > Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though? > Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it. Actually they are doing this in DC, saw this in the "Dr. Gridlock" column of the Washington Post a while back. Guy from either VA or MD was dating a girl that lived in DC, and he was in the habit of parking on the street by her apartment, and was getting hassled for not registering his car in DC. Unclear whether or not a disgruntled neighbor reported his car to the cops or if the cops just noticed a car with out of state plates in the area a lot and decided to give him a hard time. I'd post a link, but it's registration required. nate >> Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, >> though? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > nate Holy sh.t, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to register. IT is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201385.html The taxpayers of DC should be PISSED over this situation. The cops are paid by taxpayers who live in DC. The cops in DC are apparently so under-worked that they have to waste taxpayer money collecting license plate numbers of LEGALLY PARKED CARS, and entering them into some kind of database somewhere, BECAUSE THERE IS NO REAL CRIME IN DC AND THUS THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. This tells me that it's time for some 'right-sizing' in the DC police department, and some corresponding tax cuts for DC residents. Then the DC wouldn't need so much money, and they'd be less worried about dreaming up creative ways to tax everybody, in and out of the DC area. -Dave >>> Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, >>> though? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > wouldn't need so much money, and they'd be less worried about dreaming up > creative ways to tax everybody, in and out of the DC area. -Dave The way they'd probably explain it to you is if they didn't have so many people out there doing things like that, they'd probably have to raise taxes. Because after all, corruption doesn't pay for itself. >Holy sh.t, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to >register. IT is: > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201385.html > >The taxpayers of DC should be PISSED over this situation. WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH, I had to prove to some cops where I live! WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! Get over it already. Life is full of little bullshit like this. In CA, when you start a new job, you are required to prove that you are a citizen of the US. Now, do I get all bent out of shape because the Constitution is being stomped on? No, I give them a photocopy of my birth certificate and I get on with my life. Why don't you go find something *productive* to get all fired up about? SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>Holy sh.t, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to >>register. IT is: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Get over it already. Life is full of little bullshit like this. I don't think you understand the situation. The man in the referenced article was required (not asked politely, REQUIRED) to prove his residence. To do this, he had to appear in person, with proof of residence (ie, recent utility bill stub, or something). And of course, he could only do so on a weekday between ~9:30 AM and 4PM. So you go to visit your girlfriend a few times. She happens to live in a different state, but AN EASY DRIVE FROM YOUR OWN HOME. You get a summons to prove that you reside where (DUH!) your car is registered. Now you have to take time off work to travel to another state (well, district, in this case) to prove that you do NOT live there. Get over it already? Yeah, I can see YOU being perfectly happy to be in the same situation. The obvious next step is for the DC to start using traffic cameras to issue summons' to owners of ALL out-of-district vehicles that pass by the camera. That is the logical, obvious next step. There is NO difference, because it is not against the law to drive OR park in the DC area, if your car is not registered in DC. -Dave > >>Holy sh.t, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to > >>register. IT is: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > is not against the law to drive OR park in the DC area, if your car is not > registered in DC. -Dave since they already have cameras for red lights and speed, they could simply use their existing infrastructure! nate (yes, I have to drive through DC every day. No, I don't live nor work there - I actually live in MD and work in VA. Yes, DC is a hellhole and I try to avoid spending any money there at all costs.) >>>Holy sh.t, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to >>>register. IT is: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't think you understand the situation. The man in the referenced >article was required (not asked politely, REQUIRED) to prove his residence. So prove it and move on with your life. BFD. >Get over it already? Yeah, I can see YOU being perfectly happy to be in the >same situation. As I already pointed out, I am in the same situation every time I start a new job. I have to prove that I live in the US legally. You don't hear me complaining about it, either. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >>>Holy sh.t, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to > >>>register. IT is: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What the heck, I'll play too. > - Dave There's a subtle difference; when you start a new job you expect to have to bring some paperwork with you the first day on the job. That said I have never had to show anything other than my SS card and driver's license. In the case of the guy "caught" in DC, he has to take a day off work at financial cost to him, which I seriously doubt he's going to get back from DC once they find that he's not a legal resident. nate There's a subtle difference; when you start a new job you expect to have to bring some paperwork with you the first day on the job. That said I have never had to show anything other than my SS card and driver's license. In the case of the guy "caught" in DC, he has to take a day off work at financial cost to him, which I seriously doubt he's going to get back from DC once they find that he's not a legal resident. nate Yeah, it occurred to me that maybe this guy should sue DC for lost wages in small claims court. My guess is that the suit would be successful. After all, DC has NO DEFENSE for forcing this guy to lose money for NO reason. It wouldn't take too many successful lawsuits to stop this foolishness of "prove you live where we can verify that your car is legally egistered". -Dave > As I already pointed out, I am in the same situation every time I > start a new job. I have to prove that I live in the US legally. You > don't hear me complaining about it, either. No you're not. You don't have to burn a vacation day or three to satisify buracrats. You don't have to fly to IL to get a certified copy of your birth certificate. Just bring your passport the first day and that's it. Not even close to the same level of hassle. > WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH, I had to prove to some cops where I live! > WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! Aren't you the cheeleader for the police state. > Get over it already. Life is full of little bullshit like this. It shouldn't be. But if it wasn't for it's cheerleaders it wouldn't be. > In CA, > when you start a new job, you are required to prove that you are a > citizen of the US. Now, do I get all bent out of shape because the > Constitution is being stomped on? No, I give them a photocopy of my > birth certificate and I get on with my life. Do you do that every week? Because the cops are going to 'forget' who he is a week later.... >> > BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping >> > MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >nate I'm not really sure where I stand on this, but there was a car with FL plates that I saw parked on my street for about 2 months almost daily. Apparently someone else saw it too, since they were ticketed while otherwise legally parked. Their registration appeared valid also. I'm not sure if it's a maintained database, a complaint, or just the same parking people working the same areas week after week. Dave >> Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though? >> Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >registering his car in DC. Unclear whether or not a disgruntled >neighbor ...or a jealous ex-boyfriend... >reported his car to the cops or if the cops just noticed a car >with out of state plates in the area a lot and decided to give him a >hard time. > >I'd post a link, but it's registration required. Go ahead and post it. We've got BugMeNot. ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >> BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping >> MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they >> observe your car parked on the street everyday... > >Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though? >Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it. You don't have to write plates down or take much effort to notice the same car with out of state plates. On my daily commute I notice one particular car with out of state plates all the time. Then he disappeared. Now he is back. --------- Alex > You don't have to write plates down or take much effort to notice the same > car with out of state plates. On my daily commute I notice one particular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --------- > Alex That just goes to show that if you drive a pink VW microbus with purple flowers all over it, you'd better have that sucker legally registered. :) -Dave >> You don't have to write plates down or take much effort to notice the same >> car with out of state plates. On my daily commute I notice one particular [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That just goes to show that if you drive a pink VW microbus with purple >flowers all over it, you'd better have that sucker legally registered. Yes. The care I see is a funny shade of blue Mercedes CLK. It has out of state plates and is usually parked on the same block all the time. --------------- Alex >> if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep >> my licence, so can i get it back [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they >observe your car parked on the street everyday... In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of scofflaws that way... We also have a toll-free number that people can call to report vehicle licensing scofflaws: http://www.chp.ca.gov/prog/cheaters.cgi CA residents: next time a MFFY with out-of-state plates pulls some asinine maneuver on the road, go ahead and do your civic duty: report him to the CHP as a possible scofflaw. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any > vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of > scofflaws that way... They couldn't catch scofflaws 'that way', unless they stomped all over the 4th amendment first. Our company has people working world-wide, with hundreds (thousands?) of company vehicles registered in every state in the U.S. alone. MOST of those vehicles are not required to have "commercial" plates, and they have no markings of any kind that would indicate that they are commercial vehicles. (such as a company logo, phone number, advertising, etc.) Note that these vehicles are driven home to privately-owned residential-zoned residences every night (when they are in their home state, that is), and the legal vehicle registration has the PRIVATE residential address on it, with no mention of the company at all. If I didn't tell you it was a company vehicle, you would assume it was owned by one of our employees, by reviewing the registration. We do own property in California, and many of our vehicles parked at the California properties (at any one time) are LEGALLY registered in any of a dozen (or more) states. Note that most of these vehicles might only be in California for a week or two at a time, or sometimes up to a month or more, but are OUTSIDE of California most of the year. Assuming for a second that someone living and working in CA had a car registered in another state, that car could be parked on one of our CA properties, and it would look NO DIFFERENT from a dozen or so other vehicles that are LEGALLY registered out of state, and parked nearby. Ignoring for a second that the police would need the permission of the property owner to even ENTER the property, there is no fricking WAY that the CA cops could tell if that Nebraska registered vehicle (for example) they see parked on the CA property lot was legally registered or not, other than possibly running a check through Nebraska to see if the plate was still valid. But that wouldn't give the CA cops any useful information, as far as the state of CA is concerned. It would just tell the CA cops if the car was still legally registered IN NEBRASKA or not. Assuming for a second that a CA cop was ultra-observant and noticed that same Nebraska car parked on our CA lot every weekday for a few weeks straight, that STILL would not be evidence of any wrongdoing. We have open borders between states in this country. You don't need a passport or visa to travel from Nebraska to CA and back. To determine if the Nebraska car in CA was legal or not would require information on the -driver- which would be impossible to obtain without violating the 4th Amendment. -Dave > We also have a toll-free number that people can call to report vehicle > licensing scofflaws: http://www.chp.ca.gov/prog/cheaters.cgi > > CA residents: next time a MFFY with out-of-state plates pulls some > asinine maneuver on the road, go ahead and do your civic duty: report > him to the CHP as a possible scofflaw. >> In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any >> vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of >> scofflaws that way... > >They couldn't catch scofflaws 'that way', unless they stomped all over the >4th amendment first. You're in some serious denial there, buddy-boy: http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstoriesla_story_111171244.html An earlier enforcement crackdown at CHP's South Sacramento office netted nearly $575,000, said Officer David Costantini. Six officers searched parking lots at shopping centers, apartment complexes and college campuses for out-of-state plates. >Our company has people working world-wide, with >hundreds (thousands?) of company vehicles registered in every state in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >in California, and many of our vehicles parked at the California properties >(at any one time) are LEGALLY registered in any of a dozen (or more) states. The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required to be registered in CA. >Ignoring for a second that the police would need the permission of the >property owner to even ENTER the property Unless the car is parked inside a garage or otherwise hidden from view, they don't need to enter the property to see the license plate. And since when is it illegal to enter the parking lot of an office building, shopping mall, apartment complex, or other semi-public area where visitors are invited to park their cars while visiting the adjacent building? >there is no fricking WAY that the >CA cops could tell if that Nebraska registered vehicle (for example) they >see parked on the CA property lot was legally registered or not, other than >possibly running a check through Nebraska to see if the plate was still >valid. I believe that is precisely what they do. Read the article. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have >an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required >to be registered in CA. So the accusation is prima facia evidence of guilt and from then on it's your job to prove you're innocent? More and more reasons to stay the f.ck away from California. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>They couldn't catch scofflaws 'that way', unless they stomped all over the >>4th amendment first. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required > to be registered in CA. Guilty until proven innocent. Or put another way, since when did it become illegal to simply DRIVE a car in CA that has plates on it that were issued in another state? If you search parking lots (shopping centers, apartment complexes, college campuses) and find 100 cars with out-of-state plates on them, how do you know that even ONE of them is being driven by a California resident??? To take this a step further, if you somehow had a crystal ball that would tell you that a vehicle with Oregon plates parked in CA (for example) was being driven by a CA resident, how do you know that the vehicle wasn't just loaned to the CA resident by an Oregon resident??? For example, maybe a college student living in CA could be driving Mom's car. Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver, or you place a driver in a situation where he is guilty until proven innocent. Either way, the founding fathers of our country would not approve of such behavior. They'd be rolling over in their graves, in fact. -Dave >> The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have >> an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required >> to be registered in CA. > >Guilty until proven innocent. Probable cause. >Or put another way, since when did it become illegal to simply DRIVE a car >in CA that has plates on it that were issued in another state? It's not. However, if you show up at the same workplace day after day, it's pretty reasonable to suspect that you are employed there. If you show up to the same apartment complex night after night, it's reasonable to suspect that you live there. At that point you investigate further. >If you search parking lots (shopping centers, apartment complexes, college >campuses) and find 100 cars with out-of-state plates on them, how do you >know that even ONE of them is being driven by a California resident??? You don't until you investigate. >Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver Huh? How is any of this a violation of the 4th amendment? SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>> The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have >>> an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Probable cause. No, probable cause can not exist without getting information from the driver, and you'd have to violate the 4th amendment to obtain the information you would need FOR probable cause. The HUGE flaw in your "probable cause" argument is that it is not illegal (yet) for someone to drive in CA if they are operating a vehicle that happens to be registered in another state. Therefore, no probable cause. >>Or put another way, since when did it become illegal to simply DRIVE a car >>in CA that has plates on it that were issued in another state? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reasonable to suspect that you live there. At that point you > investigate further. Here you are taking information gathered from a vehicle and using it to make assumptions about the driver, and assuming that there is only ONE driver, for that matter. As I posted elsewhere, our company has property in CA and it is not unusual for (out-of-state registered) vehicles to be parked on our CA lot daily for weeks at a time. These cars are legally registered and insured, and driven by people who neither work nor live in CA. They are employed in other states and live in other states, and just happen to be in CA to assist CA workers, temporarily. Most of the year, these vehicles would be outside of California. But it might APPEAR that some of the drivers are employed in CA, if someone was anal enough to jot down all the license plate numbers on a daily basis. Also, there are legal circumstances under which an (out-of-state) registered vehicle might park at the same apartment complex night after night. My nephew is going drive his mom's car up to our house to spend the summer with us. We will have an out-of-state registered vehicle parked on our property every night for months. Legally. We don't live in a CA apartment complex, but there is nothing preventing us from doing so. (except that we prefer to own rather than lease, but that's another topic entirely) >>Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver > > Huh? How is any of this a violation of the 4th amendment? When there is no reason to suspect illegal activity, it is a violation of the 4th amendment to search a person or property. If you enter a property to jot down out-of-state license plate numbers for the specific purpose of trying to find illegal activity, that is merely a fishing expedition which would not pass Constitutional muster. Saying that it's been done in the past does not make it suddenly OK, as far as the 4th amendment is concerned. If you repeatedly violate the 4th amendment, you are just as wrong the 100th time as you were the 1st time. -Dave >>>> The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have >>>> an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No, probable cause can not exist without getting information from the >driver That statement is patently false. If a cop sees you weaving on the road, he has sufficient probably cause to pull you over for suspicion of DUI. If a cop is responding to the scene of a hit-and-run collision, and he sees a car which matches the description of the fleeing perpetrator with fresh body damage, that's probable cause to pull that driver over. Need I go on? >>>Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver >> >> Huh? How is any of this a violation of the 4th amendment? > >When there is no reason to suspect illegal activity I have repeatedly pointed out to you why there is. You simply choose to ignore it. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>>>Guilty until proven innocent. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That statement is patently false. No, it is correct, as far as out-of-state registered vehicles legally parked goes. It is only 'patently false' when applied to the red herrings you tossed out. -Dave >>>>>Guilty until proven innocent. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No, it is correct Do you think that if you repeat it often enough you "prove" it to be true? SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver, or you place >a driver in a situation where he is guilty until proven innocent. Either >way, the founding fathers of our country would not approve of such behavior. >They'd be rolling over in their graves, in fact. -Dave Too late. Attach a magnet and coils and Jefferson alone could replace the capacity of the Tennessee Valley Authority. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver, or you >>place [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Too late. Attach a magnet and coils and Jefferson alone could replace the > capacity of the Tennessee Valley Authority. OH!!! I get it now. It is a creative solution to the impending energy crisis. On that basis, I guess it's all OK. :) -Dave > >> In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any > >> vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > searched parking lots at shopping centers, apartment complexes and > college campuses for out-of-state plates. College campuses???? At least when I was in school, if you were a college student, you were still a legal resident of your home state; you couldn't establish legal residency if you were just living in a dorm room. Or is this something unique to Pennsylvania? nate Scott en Aztlán wrote: > >> In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any > >> vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > searched parking lots at shopping centers, apartment complexes and > college campuses for out-of-state plates. College campuses???? At least when I was in school, if you were a college student, you were still a legal resident of your home state; you couldn't establish legal residency if you were just living in a dorm room. Or is this something unique to Pennsylvania? I think that quite a few states actually require it. However, if you go to the DMV or equivalent in that state, the people there will probably tell you that they look the other way towards such things and focus on the people that try to be cheapwads by registering their car in a neighboring state, but essentially live and work in their state. nate >> College campuses???? At least when I was in school, if you were a >> college student, you were still a legal resident of your home state; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that try to be cheapwads by registering their car in a neighboring state, > but essentially live and work in their state. At least in PA as of the mid-90s, it wasn't a matter of looking the other way, you simply could not register a car in PA if you were a college student, a GF of mine wanted to register her car in PA for some reason and was unable to do so because the state did not consider her a legal resident. nate >In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any >vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of >scofflaws that way... One of these days someone's going to challenge that nonsense. California requires you to have your car registered in their state if you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work in California, and don't fall under one of the commuter exceptions, it's probably impossible to satisfy the laws of both states. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > One of these days someone's going to challenge that nonsense. > California requires you to have your car registered in their state if > you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work > in California, and don't fall under one of the commuter exceptions, > it's probably impossible to satisfy the laws of both states. Somebody else posted that the cops were patrolling college campuses looking for out-of-state plates. If you are a college student, it's POSSIBLE that your permanent home address could be in another state. It's also possible that you are not a FULL-TIME student. (therefore, CA couldn't claim you are 'living' in CA, if you spend most of the year elsewhere) If you are a college student in CA, it's also possible that the car is owned by someone who is not a CA resident, and who doesn't work in CA, either (ie, maybe you are driving Mom's car, and listed as a driver on Mom's car insurance . . . perfectly legal). You can't just jot down an out-of-state license plate number and accuse the owner of the car of wrongdoing without stomping all over the Constitution, SOMEHOW. -Dave >You can't just jot down an out-of-state license plate number and accuse the >owner of the car of wrongdoing without stomping all over the Constitution, >SOMEHOW. You're insane. If I see a car weaving all over the road, jot down the license plate number, call the CHP, and report the driver as a possible drunk, I am "stomping all over the Constitution?" If the cops pull this driver over and give him a sobriety test, they are "violating the 4th amendment?" SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>You can't just jot down an out-of-state license plate number and accuse >>the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > over and give him a sobriety test, they are "violating the 4th > amendment?" That's a totally different situation. It is not illegal for an (out-of-state registered) vehicle to be parked in CA. It is illegal to drive drunk in CA, last I checked. If you don't suspect illegal activity, then the search can't be Constitutionally valid. You can't violate the 4th amendment, and then use evidence gathered from the illegal search to justify violating the 4th amendment in the first place. That's putting the cart before the horse, and it is definitely a violation of the 4th amendment.-Dave >>>You can't just jot down an out-of-state license plate number and accuse >>>the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That's a totally different situation. Not at all. >It is not illegal for an >(out-of-state registered) vehicle to be parked in CA. It is if the car is owned by a CA resident. >It is illegal to drive drunk in CA, last I checked. Both are illegal. Neither is a violation of the 4th amendment. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>That's a totally different situation. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Both are illegal. Neither is a violation of the 4th amendment. Scott - What you fail to see is this: If a car is parked in CA (for example) with Oregon plates (for example), that MIGHT be illegal, but is most likely (MOST likely) LEGAL. In order to determine if it is legal or not, other laws (ie, the 4th amendment) would need to be broken JUST TO GET THAT INFORMATION, because you would need information about the DRIVER to determine if the car is legally registered or not. If all you have is (the car is legally parked in CA, and has Oregon tags on it), then you have NO EVIDENCE of any wrongdoing, and NO PROBABLE CAUSE to look into the matter any further. It is legal to park out-of-state registered vehicles in CA. Get it? That is LEGAL. You can't use legal behavior as probable cause to investigate possibly illegal behavior. That is a clear violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. A similar situation would be: A guy is walking down the street, and a cop sees the guy enter his house at 1234 Main Street. Based ONLY on observing that some guy lives at 1234 Main Street, a SWAT team is dispatched to do a no-knock entry at 1234 Main Street to search for an illegal Meth lab. That would be the EXACT SAME SITUATION (taken to extremes, obviously) as observing a car legally parked in CA, and assuming that there is illegal activity based ONLY on the fact that it has out-of-state plates on it. In both situations, you are using LEGAL activity to justify an ILLEGAL search. Both situations would be a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Drinking and driving is a totally different situation. If you observe a driver DRIVING in CA, while weaving all over the road, speeding up/slowing down, almost smashing into roadside signs and telephone poles, etc . . . then you do have probable cause to investigate further, and for a police officer to pull over that driver to investigate a possible DUI is not even close to a violation of the 4th amendment, as it is a reasonable search of person and property, based on probable cause of suspected illegal activity. There is plenty of evidence to support that particular search as Constitutional. -Dave >>>That's a totally different situation. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If a car is parked in CA (for example) with Oregon plates (for example), >that MIGHT be illegal, but is most likely (MOST likely) LEGAL. If a car is weaving in CA, the driver MIGHT be drunk. If it's OK to pull the weaving driver over and investigate further, it's also legal to contact the owner of the vehicle with Oregon plates and verify his residency. This is getting really old, Dave, so this will be my last comment on the subject. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > Somebody else posted that the cops were patrolling college campuses looking > for out-of-state plates. If you are a college student, it's POSSIBLE that > your permanent home address could be in another state. And if you're not making any taxable income in that state, why register the vehicle in that state? It stands to reason that either the student or their guarantor is paying out of state tuition rates. Why do either of them have to go through the additional cost of changing the title and registration (and possibly getting another state inspection) as well? >California requires you to have your car registered in their state if >you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work >in California, and don't fall under one of the commuter exceptions, >it's probably impossible to satisfy the laws of both states. I've come to believe that many people in this ng are scofflaws themselves, and think all traffic laws are just for revenue. However, in this area, I pretty much have to agree. I moved from from TX to AZ. In TX, you have to have your car registered there if you live there. I still owned a house there, and was essentially commuting from TX to AZ. But AZ wants you to register (and pay vehicle taxes) if you live or work in AZ. I started doing some contract work in AZ while still living and owning a TX home. So, legally, I had to register in both states (I wonder if that's legal...) Then, most states want you to register within 10 days (or less) when you move into their state. To my knowledge, no state gives you a refund when you move out, and you don't get to wait until the registration runs out on the old state before you register--and pay--in the new state. OTOH, there are lots of people who register their cars in cheaper states, and essentially live here. Which serves to justify the states' attitudes. Still, there IS a better way.... > OTOH, there are lots of people who register their cars in cheaper > states, and essentially live here. Which serves to justify the states' > attitudes. In New England, probably 4-5% of vehicles running around from May through November have Florida plates. These are people who have a winter home in Florida, spend MOST of the year living in New England, and have their cars registered in Florida, because it's much cheaper. Is it legal? That would depend on which state you ask. It's definitely a gray area, neither black nor white. If you own residential property in a state, you SHOULD be able to register your car there. But then if you are living most of the year in another state, how do you legally reside in EITHER state??? -Dave >>California requires you to have your car registered in their state if >>you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >However, in this area, I pretty much have to agree. Heh. Welcome to the Dark Side. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Are you serious? Did you not pay attention in driver's ed class grasshopper? I know, it's a prank post right? All kidding aside, NO. You can get ticketed in any state, and the only state that can take your license away is Michigan. You are not going to get it revoked because of one speeding ticket. Unless you cause havoc in the process and killed a dozen people. That license you were issued by the state of Michigan is the property of Michigan. No other state can change that. But they can have influence on the matter. Can you get it back? Depends on why it was revoked. richard1969@usa.com wrote: <idiocy snip> > Are you serious? Shut up, Stupid... You don't know sh.t from applebutter but you're always passing out sandwiches. ----- - gpsman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.