• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So driving without a license isn't a crime anymore if you're an illegal alien

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I still believe the Supreme Court was wrong in its Michigan case that declares "properly" conducted checkpoints are constitutional.

Thank god I live in a state that prohibits checkpoints because they are unconstitutional under the state constitution.
 
drebo said:
Yes, we should make it illegal for police to intervene in the commission of any crime because it infringes on the rights of the criminal to commit said crime.
Click to expand...
Police should have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pull you over. Check points infringe on the rights of noncriminals since there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause established.
 
her209 said:
Police should have reasonable suspicion or probably cause to pull you over. Check points infringe on the rights of noncriminals since there was no reasonable suspicion or probably cause established.
Click to expand...

No, probable cause and reasonable suspicion are required in order to SEARCH your car or your person, not to pull you over.
 
drebo said:
He has not, yet, and I hope to God he doesn't.

While I don't think driving without a license should be a criminal charge, it definitely should be a civil infraction and if it is done with the commission of another crime (transporting illegal substances/people), it should definitely be an enhancement on that charge.

These checkpoints exist to catch people doing things they're not supposed to be doing...whether that's driving drunk or driving illegally, it doesn't matter. Don't want to get caught? Don't drive illegally.
Click to expand...

Actually driving without a license is a crime, and I don't think this bill would change that. You can still be cited for it, just not taken to jail. I think driving without a license is a serious safety issue, maybe not as bad as DUI, but bad nonetheless. Which is why I don't agree with this legislation. It's a bad idea regardless of whether the unlicensed driver is an illegal alien or not.

The checkpoints in particular are another matter, however. There are 4th Amendment issues with these checkpoints because they allow people to be detained without probable cause. Posing them as a method to detect any and all forms of crime is a problem.
 
drebo said:
He has not, yet, and I hope to God he doesn't.

While I don't think driving without a license should be a criminal charge, it definitely should be a civil infraction and if it is done with the commission of another crime (transporting illegal substances/people), it should definitely be an enhancement on that charge.

These checkpoints exist to catch people doing things they're not supposed to be doing...whether that's driving drunk or driving illegally, it doesn't matter. Don't want to get caught? Don't drive illegally.
Click to expand...

Actually no, they are supposed to catch those driving under the influence. Thats the only thing thats been upheld by SCotUS.

It has to be a proper DUI checkpoint. SCotUS believe the states interest in safety trumps your constitutional right. No where does the supreme court say it is constitutional to setup checkpoints for anything else discussed here.
 
drebo said:
No, probable cause and reasonable suspicion are required in order to SEARCH your car or your person, not to pull you over.
Click to expand...
So its not considered detention? Can I just refuse to pull over since probable cause and reasonable suspicion is not required?
 
Last edited:
halik said:
I would tend to agree with the above, whenever you take a Policy issue and turn it into a personal issue, you're going down a wrong path.

Vast majority of illegals are good, hardworking people that jumped the fence to find a better life. Positive or negative human interest stories (mother shipped back after 20 years / illegal murderer murdered again) have absolutely no impact on the *fact* that influx of large number of unskilled/uneducated people is bad for the country.

And before someone jumps on my throat for not saying undocumented or some such other euphemism, my status was "legal alien" per INS paperwork for 10 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this entirely. We can't afford an open border policy here, but the animus towards the illegals themselves is personalizing the issue to a very great extent. The notion that poor people hopping a fence to get a better paying job is an "invasion" or "occuption" is sheer tinfoil hat lunacy. If we can't afford the influx, then we need to do a better job of interdicting the border. All this frothing at the mouth and drama queen bullshit has little to do with reality and everything to do with the people doing the frothing.
 
her209 said:
So its not considered detention? Can I just refuse to pull over since probably cause and reasonable suspicion is not required?
Click to expand...

Yes it's a detention. And asking for a driver's license is a search. In the ordinary case, you're pulled over for suspicion of a crime (typically an infraction) and that is why you can be stopped and asked for ID.

The SCOTUS has said that certain kinds of detentions and searches that are done for purpose of promoting public safety can be done without PC, provided that certain requirements are met. Setting up checkpoints where we detain people and ask for ID for purposes of generically detecting any and all crime remains unconstitional under current SCOTUS doctrine, if memory serves.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
Actually driving without a license is a crime, and I don't think this bill would change that. You can still be cited for it, just not taken to jail. I think driving without a license is a serious safety issue, maybe not as bad as DUI, but bad nonetheless. Which is why I don't agree with this legislation. It's a bad idea regardless of whether the unlicensed driver is an illegal alien or not.

The checkpoints in particular are another matter, however. There are 4th Amendment issues with these checkpoints because they allow people to be detained without probable cause. Posing them as a method to detect any and all forms of crime is a problem.
Click to expand...

Most places do jail you for your first offense. And it takes multiple offenses to have mandatory jail sentence.

Driving without a license seriousness depends on why you are driving without a license. Is it because it revoked after x number of DUIs or was it you were denied a drivers license

Before someone mentions insurance. Illegal aliens CAN get auto insurance without a license in most states, including California.
 
Wreckem said:
Most places do jail you for your first offense. And it takes multiple offenses to have mandatory jail sentence.

Driving without a license seriousness depends on why you are driving without a license. Is it because it revoked after x number of DUIs or was it you were denied a drivers license

Before someone mentions insurance. Illegal aliens CAN get auto insurance without a license in most states, including California.
Click to expand...

If you meant that most places do NOT jail you for the first offense, I believe that is correct. And yes, the seriousness of the crime does depend on why. Nonetheless, not having a license is a safety issue to some degree or other regardless. In the case of a typical illegal, they never had a license to begin with, meaning they were never tested for driving competency. That may not be as serious a safety issue as having it suspended or revoked for DUI, but it's a serious issue nonetheless.
 
woolfe9999 said:
If you meant that most places do NOT jail you for the first offense, I believe that is correct. And yes, the seriousness of the crime does depend on why. Nonetheless, not having a license is a safety issue to some degree or other regardless. In the case of a typical illegal, they never had a license to begin with, meaning they were never tested for driving competency. That may not be as serious a safety issue as having it suspended or revoked for DUI, but it's a serious issue nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Yeah I meant do not. Most don't even jail you the second. Its usually the third that requires a mandatory stint in county jail. But it also depends on if its was driving with a revoked license, or just never having a license. If you had a DUI and your license revoked for 6 months to a year. You are likely to be arrested and jail because its likely a probation violation and a lot of state will arrest someone driving on a revoked license.
 
drebo said:
What's even more hypocritical is that he's a Canadian. Canada has extremely strict immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? What on earth made you think I was Canadian? I was born and raised in Philadelphia. (Go Phillies! Eagles, stop sucking!)
 
woolfe9999 said:
If I had to guess I'd say he's confusing you with another poster, possibly Sandorski. Fail!
Click to expand...

blg_blame_canada.jpg
 
eskimospy said:
Misleading thread title is misleading.

DUI checkpoints are there to check for drunk drivers, not as a blanket law enforcement checkpoint for any and all automotive infractions. (this is part of why they aren't unconstitutional to begin with) This also to all citizens of California, not simply illegal immigrants, and only applies at DUI checkpoints.

Illegal immigrants can't get drivers licenses, which has always struck me as dumb. You're committing one crime, so we are going to force you to commit more? Who gains from that?
Click to expand...

So someone holds up a gas station. They get to a check point and they have to let them go right?
 
Lithium381 said:
i'm a 2nd class citizen in my own state? if *I* got pulled over w/o a licesne, i'd be out hundreds to pay fines and get my car back....
Click to expand...

No you aren't. The bill is against citing ANYONE for lack of a license at a DUI checkpoint, not specifically an illegal immigrant.
 
Seems that this ought to be moot. They should be taken into custody. A legal resident can pick it up from the impound lot.
 
eskimospy said:
No you aren't. The bill is against citing ANYONE for lack of a license at a DUI checkpoint, not specifically an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...
What does it actually say? Preventing immediate arrest and impoundment is not the same as not allowing citations.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So someone holds up a gas station. They get to a check point and they have to let them go right?
Click to expand...

No, not if they happen to discover evidence of the robbery within the narrow confines of what they are allowed to do at the checkpoint. Under SCOTUS 4th Amendment doctrine, a checkpoint has to be set up for a specific, narrow purpose. However, if, in the course of carrying out that narrow purpose, evidence of a different crime is discovered, then yes of course the person can be arrested. Which is why the arrests for no license are probably OK in this context, as would be other arrests if the police happened to encounter evidence of different crimes. However, it has been asserted here that a checkpoint can be set up to just randomly detain people for purposes of detecting whatever crimes they might find. That is not allowed.

- wolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top