Supreme Court Says No License Is Necessary to Drive On Public Highways

 

“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. 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 Sovereign Citizen movement will often argue that the right of travel on the public highways (for non-commercial purposes) is a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege, and therefore they don't require a driver's license, vehicle license plates, or registration. But where do sovereign citizens get this idea? The We Are Change web-site lists several statements from the courts that are used to make the argument against the requirement for driver's licenses and vehicle registration.

Now, I believe that the sovereign citizen interpretation of the law tends to be wrong (as do judges in traffic courts when sovereign citizens are cited for driving without a license, or failure to register their vehicles).

The ability of the state to regulate drivers on the road dates to the dawn of the automobile in the 1916 Supreme Court decision regarding Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey.

 A year prior to this the courts held that "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This 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." - Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)

In Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975) the courts stated "Although a driver's license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense."

In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive. While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules. If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege. Though clearly, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction.

Those active in the sovereign citizen movement may actually believe that their interpretation of case law is correct, and that they are not required to have a driver's license or vehicle registration; although perhaps more often they understand the legal requirement for driver's licensing and vehicle registration but refuse to comply with these laws as part of a political statement and on-going civil disobedience.

In 2013 (updated January 29, 2017) Police One published an article "What cops need to know about sovereign citizen encounters", stating: "Law enforcement officers across the country are experiencing a growing number of contacts with sovereign citizens, individuals and groups who possess a strong anti-government ideology. Because they believe the government, its representatives, laws and policies are illegitimate, sovereign citizens regularly find themselves in conflict with the law. Although it’s difficult to accurately access their numbers, it is safe to say that since 2000, their numbers and the violent incidents associated with them have increased."

In 2015, Police One published "5 responses to a sovereign citizen at a traffic stop".

So, did the U.S. Supreme Court really say that no license is necessary to drive on the public highways? Well, apparently not! While the courts have held that we have a fundamental right to travel, to move freely from one place to another, if we chose to do that traveling while operating a motor vehicle, then a driver's license and vehicle registration - along with compliance with the rules of the road (safe operation on the vehicle) are required.

Finally, if we return to the quote that began this post, taken from Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 (Va. 1930) and read the next paragraph in the court's decision we find that "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications... The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."