(U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). (1st) Highways Sect.163 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 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. Because in most states YOU would've paid out that $2 million and counting. If you talk to a real lawyer (and not Sidney Powell or Rudy Giuliani) maybe your lack of critical thinking would be better. In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone. Firms, Sample Letter re Trial Date for Traffic Citation. Posted byPaul Stramerat11:31 PM52 comments:Email This, Labels:Anna von Reitz,Catholic Faith,Paul Stramer. You "mah raights" crowd are full of conspiracy theories. 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 purposes of life and business. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will. -American Mutual Liability Ins. 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. No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver's licenses. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670, 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. I have been studying and Practicing both Criminal and Civil law for 25 years now. 21-846 argued date: November 1, 2022 decided date: February 22, 2023 The Affordable Care Act faced its third Supreme Court challenge in 2021. QPReport. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. Both have the right to use the easement. Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his household goods[. The email address cannot be subscribed. Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 41. Contact a qualified traffic ticket attorney to help you get the best result possible. 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, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. %PDF-1.6 % The 10th Amendment debunks the anti-Americans claims about States being unable to enact laws. "The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. This case was not about driving. 20-979 Patel v. Garland (05/16/2022) had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver's license application falsely stating that he was a United States. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456, "The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. A "private automobile" functions in that it is being driven - AND it is subject to regulations and permits (licenses.) Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135, "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. Moreover, fewer than one in five Americans owned a car in the 1930s (a demographic that saw little upswing until after the end of World War II). Kim LaCapria is a former writer for Snopes. This article first appeared on SomeNextLevelShit.com and was authored by Jeffrey Phillips. You make these statements as if you know the law. You think Paul here went out and took off his plates and went driving, NO. The courts say you are wrong. If you want to verify that the supreme court has made a ruling about something, go to supremecourt.gov and search for it. 887. A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle. If someone is paid to drive someone or something around, they are driving. I would also look up the definition of "Traffic". I fear we don't have much longer to wait for a total breakdown of society, and a crash of the currency. Select Accept to consent or Reject to decline non-essential cookies for this use. All rights reserved. 1995 - 2023 by Snopes Media Group Inc. No matter which state you live in, you are required by law to have a valid driver's license and all endorsements needed for the type of vehicle you are operating, e.g., motorcycle endorsements, commercial vehicle endorsements, etc.Driving without a valid licensecan result in significant charges. If they were, they were broken the first time government couldnt keep up their end of it. A driver's license is only legally required when doing commerce. A Kansas deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a pickup truck, dis-covering that the truck belonged to respondent Glover and that Glover's driver's license had been revoked. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. http://www.paulstramer.net/2010/03/red-amendment-how-your-freedom-was.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/05/emergency-communications-what-you.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/10/bombshell-rod-class-gets-fourth.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/11/what-is-really-law-and-what-is-not-law.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2010/03/montana-freemen-speak-out-from-inside.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2009/10/from-gary-marbut-mssa-to-mssamtssa.html, Posted byPaul Stramerat9:58 AM2 comments:Email This, Labels:commercial courts,contract law,drivers license,Right to travel,us corporation. I do invite everyone to comment as they see fit, but follow a few simple rules. If this is all true, just think of how much more we have been deceived about in law for the purpose of collecting our money to use for immorality and evil. The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways 10) The term used for commercial purposes means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. Unless you have physically called the Justices of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and asked each and everyone of them if the Headline Posted on Paul LeBreton site is Correct, then you have no right to tell people that it's not true. Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. Period. Christian my butt. Anyone who thinks that driving uninsured and unlicensed is just trying toake a unreasonable argument but I promise if they had someone hit them and harm their child or leave them disabled their opinion would be much different. 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, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS. ), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. Because the consequences for operating a vehicle poorly or without adequate training could harm others, it is in everyone's best interest to make sure the people with whom you share the road know what they are doing. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen. When you think insurance you think money and an accident not things like hitting a kid on a bike or going through an accident like mine where AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE has spent over $2 million for my medical. Saying "well that's just the law" is what's wrong with the people in this country. She shared a link to We Are Change from July 21, 2015, under the title "U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS." Talk to a lawyer and come back to reality. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; wKRDbJ]' QdsE ggoPoqhs=%l2_txx^_OGMCq}u>S^g1?_vAoMVmVC>?U1]\.Jb|,q59OQ)*F5BP"ag8"Hh b!9cao!. The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle. Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 562, 566-67 (1979), 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. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 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. So, let us start with your first citation: Berberine v Lassiter: False citation, missing context. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.. Spotted something? 942 0 obj <> endobj The corporation of the United States has lied to us to get as much money as they can from the citizens the corporation believes belongs to them. "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. SCOTUS has several about licensing in order to drive though. That decision said life without parole should be reserved for "the rarest of juvenile offenders, those . 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) The Southern Poverty Law Center has dubbed the group a ", https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/01/fake-news-U.S.-Supreme-Court-Did-NOT-Rule-No-Licence-Necessary-To-Drive-Automobile-on-Public-Roads.html, Fake News: World Health Organization Did NOT Officially Declare Coronavirus A Plague; 950,680 Are NOT Dead, Fake News: NO Evidence Coronavirus Is A Man-made Depopulation Weapon, "Restore Liability For the Vaccine Makers", Snopes cited the fuller context of the ruling, conspiracy-obsessed 'Patriot' organization, Verified signatory of the IFCN Code of Principles, Facebook Third-Party Fact-Checking Partner. The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to make an investigative traffic stop after running the license plate of a vehicle and learning that the owner's driver's license has been revoked, even if the officer is unsure that the owner is driving the vehicle. keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Co., 24 A. endstream endobj 946 0 obj <>stream You don't think they've covered that? 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways., -American Mutual Liability Ins. (Paul v. Virginia). 9Sz|arnj+pz8" lL;o.pq;Q6Q bBoF{hq* @a/ ' E U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 The word operator shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation., Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 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 an inalienable right of every citizen. Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 RIGHT A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). Foul language, and invective accomplish nothing but the creation of anger, and have no place here. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. ] U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex. See some links below this article for my comments on this and related subjects. The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. delivered the opinion of the Court. Generally . Posted by Jeffrey Phillips | Jul 21, 2015 |, The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn 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. It's time to stop being so naive and blind and wake up and start making changes that make sense. 1983). "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. If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void. - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). Hendrick v. Maryland235 US 610 (1915) Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases. Id., at 197. 4F@3)1?`??AJzI4Xi``{&{ H;00iN`xTy305)CUq qd Just because there is a "law" in tact does not mean it's right. Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless., City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. 1983). You're actually incorrect, do some searching as I am right now. The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. EDGERTON, Chief Judge: Iron curtains have no place in a free world. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. The decision if the court was that the claim lacked merit. Uber drivers must be treated as workers rather than self-employed, the UK's Supreme Court has ruled. Because roads and highways are public infrastructure and operating a vehicle poorly has the potential to harm others and their property, state governments are within their rights to require citizens to have a driver's license before operating a vehicle on public roads, and states do require drivers to be properly licensed. The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.. 967 0 obj <>stream Social contracts cant actually be a real thing. Try again. 26, 28-29. We have all been fooled. People will only be pushed so far, and that point is being reached at breakneck speed these days. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. "The Supreme Court Has Spoken: The Affordable Care Act Is the Law of the Land," was the title of a statement from the Democratic group Protect Our Care, founded to fight GOP repeal efforts in. I said what I said. offense; North Dakota subsequently suspended his drivers' license when the test returned positive. Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. You THINK you can read the law and are so ill informed. 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." No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver's licenses. 0 You can update your choices at any time in your settings. United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." 22. WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police officers may stop vehicles registered to people whose driver's licenses had been suspended on the assumption that the driver was the. Wake up! "Our goal is to create a community of truth-seekers and peacemakers who share a commitment to nonviolent action," the site says. hb``` cb`QAFu;o(7_tMo6wd+\;8~rS *v ,o2;6.lS:&-%PHpZxzsNl/27.G2p40t00G40H4@:` 0% \&:0Iw>4e`b,@, For years now, impressive-looking texts and documents have been circulated online under titles such as "U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Highways/Streets," implying that some recent judicial decision has struck down the requirement that motorists possess state-issued driver's licenses in order to legally operate vehicles on public roads. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle. House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. That case deals with a Police Chief trying to have someone's license suspended. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt.The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. While many quote Thompson V Smith,(1930) regarding travel it also says, Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. Your membership is the foundation of our sustainability and resilience. No. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." 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). ], U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". 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 guarantees. In Thompson v Smith - SCOTUS In a decisive win for the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused "to print a new permission slip for entering the home without a warrant.". There is no supreme court ruling confirming or denying a "right to drive" Without this requirement, the state puts themselves in legal jeopardy because the constituents can sue the state for not sufficiently vetting persons operating vehicles to make sure they were aware that the person who just killed 20 people was not capable of operating said vehicle safely. Please prove this wrong if you think it is, with cites from cases as the author has done below. App. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) A soldiers personal automobile is part of his household goods[. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). Speeding tickets are because of the LAW. As I have said in the introduction at the top of the blog "You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. Just remember people. Stop making crazy arguments over something so simplistic. ], United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. (Paul v. Virginia). See who is sharing it (it might even be your friends) and leave the link in the comments. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. And driving without a license is indeed illegal in all 50 states. Just because you have a right does not mean that right is not subject to limitations. At issue was not the need to have a license (as was already affirmed) but the the financial responsibility law violated due process. "We hold that when the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is the . Snopes and the Snopes.com logo are registered service marks of Snopes.com. Both have the right to use the easement.. 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)Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. If you want to do anything legal for a job, you need the states the right to travel does not pertain to driving at all and usually pertains to the freedom of movement of a passenger. . App. Answer (1 of 4): I went to Supreme Court of the United States and searched for the topic of 'drivers license,' and receive this result: Supreme Court of the United States So, it does appear some people have sued over losing their State drivers' license, and taken their case all the way to the U.. 10th Amendment gives the states the right and the obligation to maintain good public order. I suggest those interested look up the definition of "Person" or "Individual". The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that police officers get a warrant before . It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." 234, 236. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. Complex traffic tickets usually require a lawyer, Experienced lawyers can seek to reduce or eliminate penalties. 241, 28 L.Ed. 22. ..'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.' Lead Stories is a U.S. based fact checking website that is always looking for the latest false, misleading, deceptive or Stop stirring trouble. 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. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. Traffic is defined when one is involved in a regulated commercial enterprise for profit or gain. That does not mean in a social compact you get to disregard them. With that I shall begin with my opinion and some history about Saint Ignatius of Loyola. So, I agree with your plea but not your stance. He wants you to go to jail. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 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. endstream endobj 943 0 obj <>/Metadata 73 0 R/Outlines 91 0 R/Pages 936 0 R/StructTreeRoot 100 0 R/Type/Catalog>> endobj 944 0 obj <>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 945 0 obj <>stream 234, 236. The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle., Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. I would trust Snopes fact checking accountability about as far as I could throw it, and I do not have any arms. When you have an answer to that, send them out to alter public property and youll find the government still objects, because what they MEANT was government property, but they didnt want you to notice. We never question anything or do anything about much. This material may not be reproduced without permission. The Southern Poverty Law Center has dubbed the group a "conspiracy-obsessed 'Patriot' organization" that delves into radical far-right conspiracies while trying to mask itself as a moderate group. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a statute. A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle. 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 . [I]t is a jury question whether an automobile is a motor vehicle[. A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. Sign up on lukeuncensored.com or to check out our store on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. If you believe your rights have been unjustly limited, you may have grounds for legal action.An experienced legal professionalcan provide advice and assistance when it comes to ensuring you are able to fully exercise your rights. If you truly believe this then you obviously have never learned what a scholarly source is. If a policy officer pulls someone over, the first question is may I see a driver's license. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. v. CALIFORNIA . And thanks for making my insurance go up because of your lack of being a decent person. If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a persons privilege. Operation Green Light helps customers save money and get back on the road. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.. "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. Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. The decision comes as President Joe. No, that's not true: This is a made-up story that gets re-posted and shared every couple years. "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."