Right To Drive Without A State License
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, ... the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.- Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.- U.S. Supreme Court, Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.
The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.- Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right-1979 California case, re White, 97 Cal. App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.- Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966)
No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel isChicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.
The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.- Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972)
The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guaranteesBerberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth , 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the 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."- People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.- Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is anEscobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27inalienable rightof every citizen.
A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.- Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon...- State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.- Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.- Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes- [Stephenson vs. Binford, 287 US 25]., 264; Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US 140, 144 and cases cited; Frost and Frost Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 592; Railroad Commission vs. Inter—City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 3131
Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.People v. Nothaus 147 Colo. 210.
Traffic infractions are not a crime.People v. Battle
Other right to use an automobile cases:
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160
- TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
- WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
- CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
- THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
- U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
- GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
- CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
- SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
- CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)
- Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516
Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence.
Some citations may be paraphrased.
Top Of Page