Why It Makes Sense to Allow Illegal Immigrants to Have Drivers Licenses



Who would you rather have driving behind you on the 405 Hwy at 5pm on a Friday: 

1) a licensed and insured driver; or 2) an unlicensed, uninsured driver? Well, we got some bad news for you.

Some of those drivers behind you do not have insurance or a drivers license. They may not be able to pay your lost wages if they smash into you.

Maybe there is no insurance company to make a claim against if they bash you. Maybe that driver behind you never took a driving test, or never spent an hour in driver’s ed. Is that OK with you?

You dont get to pick who drives behind you. You need help making sure that driver behind you has insurance, and knows how to drive. But who should help you? Who should provide that protection to the public?

Answer:  Your State Government and their Department of Motor Vehicles agency.

How should they do it?

Answer: By Getting as many of the actual drivers as possible to become licensed, competent and insured drivers – without regard to where their legal residence might be.

Many people without a drivers license know how to drive safely and have money for insurance. They want a drivers license and insurance desperately, but cannot get it because of a combination of institutionalized racism and a lack of public interest vision. It’s time to make a change.

Currently in California and most states, the government makes sure the legal residents are licensed and insured.  Then they ignore the undocumented immigrants driving behind you. They pretend that there are no such drivers. Yet, they are behind you.

Current CA state law requires that all applicants for a Drivers License submit proof of legal presence in the United States.  This means that all illegal immigrants in CA are not allowed to get a valid drivers license (unless they have fake documents). They cannot even apply to take the driver’s test, or the DMV eye exam even if they wish to drive legally with insurance.

The proof of legal residency requirement for a drivers license is an off spring of a weird law that makes a Drivers License legal identification AND proof of legal residency at the same time. The simple CA Drivers License is not so simple. It is a barrier to entry. It is a Drivers License with super powers to exclude outsiders from the club. Established racism? Perhaps.

This paradigm makes zero sense if you are driving with people you dont know on the 405 on Friday Night. It is kinda like that strange law that requires Safeway to put beer in a bag to hide it from the public outside in the parking lot.

Illegal Immigrants Are Here; They Will Drive With or Without a Drivers License.

Illegal immigrants are in America.  They are here, like it or not.  They drive behind you more often than you think. Like it or not, deal with it.  And while here, they will to drive to work, and to buy food for their families.  There is no way to prevent it.

Why will the unlicensed drive despite the law? Because they have to, there is no other choice for most immigrant families.  Most adults living in the US, regardless of where the law says they belong, depend on vehicle transportation to survive.  Most people have to drive to a job site for a source of income.  They have to drive to buy food for their families. That’s life.

There Is No Way to Prevent Illegal Immigrants From Buying, or Accessing a Car. 

Cars are everywhere.  They can be borrowed, bought, rented, stolen, and used on American public streets regardless of whether or not the driver is a legal resident of the US.  There is no such thing as an illegal alien “detector” for cars, nor a drivers license scanner in the dashboard.

When you add the irresistible force of needing to drive for food and money, and the always available access to a car, you will find a driver.  If that driver has a drivers license, he/she will be a legal driver.  If that person does not have a drivers license, she/he will be an illegal driver. If he or she is behind you, they are behind you.  Either way, they are going to drive.


All Unlicensed Drivers Are Uninsured Drivers.

Without a valid driver’s license, it is impossible to get auto insurance coverage – even if you have the money and want to buy it to protect yourself. What this means to you is that undocumented immigrant drivers do not have auto insurance coverage.

Drivers Without Insurance Are a Danger to the Public.

It is in the public’s interest to make sure that every single driver has valid auto liability insurance. The reason for this is that when an insured driver injuries people, there is a pool of money available to compensate those who are injured. That pool of money is called the insurance company, and they have to pay a covered loss – regardless of the wealth of the negligent driver. 

Auto insurance is a way for the public to protect each other from harm or damage that an individual negligent driver cannot pay out of their own pocket or assets.

When people without liability insurance cause collisions and injury people or cause property damage, the money available to the victims is whatever the assets of the negligent driver are.

If Allowed To Get a Drivers License, Most Immigrants Would Apply and Comply.

There are serious penalties for driving without a drivers license.  They are ignored due to force of circumstance by those driving without a license, but they do exist.  When caught, the unlicensed driver gets cited and must go to court, and may be ordered to pay a fine. But that is not the real harm.

The real harm, the most dreaded penalty for most, comes when the family’s car gets impounded.

If unlicensed drivers knew they could eliminate the danger of sudden impound by becoming licensed, they would have a strong incentive to become licensed ASAP.  If a requirement of the licensing process demanded the purchase of a minimum auto liability insurance policy, there would be a very strong motivating force to buy insurance and get licensed.

A Valid Driver’s License Would Give the Government Valuable Info For Catching Wanted Criminals.

By giving an illegal immigrant the opportunity to apply for a valid drivers license, the state is able to collect a huge amount of personal and identifying information. This valuable data would include fingerprints, photos, address, handwriting sample, etc that could be used to identify people involved in crimes. This data could be collected and used for non immigration purposes to great benefit for the public.

A Valid Drivers License Would Force Illegal Immigrants to Learn How to Drive Here.

If an illegal immigrant has no opportunity to apply for a drivers license, there is no need to study for the DMV test. There is no need to learn the signs, or the differences between Tiajuana street laws and the California Vehicle Code.

Without access to a state government’s licensing process, there is no need to study the rules of the road, no need to learn how to parallel park, and there is no incentive to provide the government proof that the person is medically safe to drive.

Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Have Drivers Licenses Would Reduce Wasteful Court Cases.

California, like nearly all states, has a law against driving without a valid drivers license. (Veh. Code 12500(a).) This law makes it a misdemeanor crime to drive without a drivers license.

When an unlicensed person is caught driving, they are subject to arrest and car impound. And a misdemeanor court case starts. Jail time is a possible sentence – and when imposed, the tax payers pay for the jailing costs.

When a person is accused of a misdemeanor crime in CA, like driving without a valid drivers license, if they cannot hire a defense Attorney, they are entitled to use of the Public Defenders at the tax payer’s expense.

My experience also tells me that there is a high frequency of missed court dates on Driving without a License cases, especially among the undocumented immigrant community. My experience tells me that undocumented immigrants are often afraid to go to court on any any case for fear of prosecution as an immigrant.

Then end result is that all CA courts have VC 12500a cases with failure to appear charges and misdemeanor warrants that can never be collected.  But still the court maintains the files, tries to pursue unpaid fines, and remains ready at any moment to expend the state’s resources to capture, arrest, and punish these unlicensed failure to appear defendants, all for the simple act of driving.

Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Would Reduce Uninsured Motorist Claims.

With more of the current drivers on the road insured and licensed, the population of uninsured drivers on the road would decrease.  As it decreases, there would be less accidents with uninsured drivers involved.  With less uninsured negligent drivers, there would necessarily be less claims against uninsured motorist coverages. (1)

What Has to Be Done?

The drivers license application process is the only way for our government to protect law abiding drivers against those who are unsafe, and uninsured. That drivers license application and screening process should be available to the largest pool of potential drivers possible. To accomplish this, we recommend:

1. Drivers Licenses Should Not Be Proof of Legal Residency or Anything Not Related to Driving.

2. Drivers have to be giving immunity from prosecution for immigration offenses based upon anything they provide in the licensing process.

3. All persons who want to drive in CA legally should be allow to apply for a drivers license regardless of their residency status.

A drivers license should be about where you want to drive, and how you drive. It should not be about where you are supposed to live.

Hate this article? Use it for toilet paper or leave a comment.

 

Footnotes:

(1) We are assuming here that the number of UM policies out there would remain the same. Since this is an optional coverage in CA, the number of UM policies is variable, and certainly has many variables.  But it also seems that the number of UM policies bought by consumers would be related to, and driven by, the population of uninsured motorists known to be on the roadways.

 

 

Posted in Driving Safely, Going to Court, Vehicle Code | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Understanding Traffic Court Bail & How to Get a Trial W/O Bail



In the traffic court world, the term “Bail” generally refers to the amount of the standard fine for the violation. Some courts will require you to pay this amount in advance of setting a trial date by mail, as a deposit to cover the fine if you lose or do not show up.

Here is what the Traffic Court Commissioners and Judges are actually taught on the subject in California courts:

A person who has received a written notice to appear in court on an infraction may post the appropriate bail and penalty assessment to the county clerk before the date on which he or she is required to appear. [See VC §§40510(a), 40519, 40521(a).] If the person does not appear in court on that date, the bail is declared forfeited, and the case may be closed. [See VC §§40512(a)(1), 40512.5(a), 40519.]

A person who has not posted bail on or before the date on which he or she is required to appear must appear in court on that date for an arraignment hearing, at which he or she may request traffic violator school—if eligible—or enter a plea of guilty, no contest, or not guilty. Arraignment is discussed in §4.12.

Source: http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/cjer/courses/traffic/02_202.htm

Nearly all California Traffic Courts allow a defendant to plead not guilty by mail and get a trial date without an in person Arraignment if they post bail.  But that is not the only way to get a trial date.

If you cannot afford to post bail on a traffic citation, but want a trial anyway, you should go to court in person and ask the court clerk for an Arraignment.  Once in court at the Arraignment (usually a walk in appearance), you can plead Not Guilty in person and ask the judge to “waive” the bail posting because you are unable to pay, but want your day in court.

If a judge at an in person, on time, Arraignment refuses to give you a trial date without the posting of bail, you have an appeal able issue. To preserve the issue for appeal – state in court (so that it appears on the record):

“Judge, I wish to plead not guilty because I am innocent.  But I cannot afford to post bail, and the court is refusing to give me a trial date without payment of money up front. I cannot pay, so I shall plead guilty even though I am innocent and ask the court for time to pay.”

Then, within 10 days, file a Notice of Appeal with the court clerk appealing the Denial of your demand for a Trial.

But if you use those words, you should not have a problem.

Visit Traffic Court Pros.com. Free Legal Self Help. Free Attorney Case Reviews.

Posted in Going to Court, Traffic Court Trials | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Elected San Francisco Sheriff Accused of Domestic Battery, Has His Guns Impounded.



San Francisco strikes again. I cant make it up. It’s real.

San Francisco currently has a newly elected Sheriff who is having a really bad week. He is prohibited from carrying weapons! And he is prohibited from seeing his wife or son.

Why? Because the the County Prosecutor thinks he is a violent criminal.

 

The San Francisco Superior Court took action against the Sheriff by ordering him to surrender his personal firearms to the court.

The “Firearms Surrender Order” was the result of a Criminal Complaint against the Sheriff alleging 3 misdemeanor charges related to Domestic Violence and child endangerment.

In compliance with the court order, reports state that Sheriff Ron Mirkarimi surrendered 3 handguns.


Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is new on the job. He just got elected a few months ago, and just recently finished his first NPR interview on his vision for reducing crime in SF. It seems too early to have this turmoil on his staff.

Mirkarimi’s job threatening troubles started New Years Eve when, according to the People of the State of California, he hurt his wife during an altercation. The incident was supposedly captured on video. Supposedly, there is evidence of bruising on the arm of his wife who is a former Venezuelan TV/film star.

If true, the facts in the Criminal Complaint filed against the Sheriff by the District Attorney would constitute misdemeanor criminal domestic violence.

At his arraignment, with Defense Attorney with him, Mirkarimi plead “Not Guilty” to everything and demanded a jury trial. the Judge set a trial date of February 24, 2012 – roughly 45 days out from the arraignment. That date may change if Mirkarimi waives his right to a speedy trial, which is common.

http://www.rossforsheriff.org/cache/preview/950a1d686c8645b40e5f3d5ea73cb3c4.jpg

Election Campaign Photo

And he may have good reason to “waive Time” as they call it – because he just ditched his male defense Attorney and hired Berzerkeley Attorney Lidia Shenade Stiglich. (according to unconfirmed media reports). She will need time to review the evidence herself and get prepared for trial and plea negotiations.

There was no immediate report on how much her fee was. Attorneys make up their own fee schedules for whatever the market will bear. One can only guess as to why he hired her. He did not ask for a Public Defender.

San Francisco County Prosecutor, District Attorney George Gascon, says they have plenty of evidence to prove the charges “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” He also assured court step lookilooks that they will treat the elected Sheriff as they would any other criminal.

Of course by law, the Sheriff is presumed innocent according to the Constitution. But the District Attorney announced they have plenty of evidence, so it looks bad from this coffee house table.

The charges do have maximum jail sentences of about 1 year each. As first offenses, they rarely bring long jail sentences. Cases with more serious injuries are charged as felonies, and charges of this sort do qualify for alternative sentencing programs, probation, etc. Attorney analysts at TrafficCourtPros.com expect that a real jail sentence on these charges is unlikely.

But in the long term – damage to the law enforcement community of San Francisco County looms on a collision course. This current case pits the county’s chief prosecutor against the elected Sheriff in a battle where an elected prosecutor has to prove that the elected sheriff is a criminal.

Instant Complete Warrant Search

Instant Complete Warrant Search

In a cosmomegapolis like San Francisco, one would think that close trust and cooperation between the District Attorney and the Sheriff would be required to provide effective law enforcement.

The Sheriff claims he is innocent. He refuses to resign. He believes he can do his job effectively, without the right to carry a firearm. He believes he can do his job effectively, without the trust of the District Attorney.

A modern movie fan only need to ponder a second or 2, to write the expected ending to this story. Prosecutor pretends to prosecute elected official. Wife refuses to testify. Charges dropped. Sheriff congratulates the prosecutor on professionalism, prosecutor says the evidence was not there. Questions of corruption fly.

But maybe not? It will be interesting to watch. Maybe he does get convicted of domestic battery as the DA predicts? Then what? Does SF still have an effective Sheriff? When does he do his Sheriff’s work program time wearing the Orangina costume? Questions of corruption will fly either way.

Regardless of how this story ends, even if Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is 100% innocent, the damage to San Francisco’s law enforcement community is done. Or maybe the Sheriff shouldn’t have a gun?

“So, Sheriff, when did you stop beating your . . . ?” [insert cartoon]

More Info:

CBS SF Story Jan 2012: CBS SF Story #2

Posted in Celebrity Arrests, Going to Court, Prosecutorial Misconduct | Tagged | 3 Comments

Hearsay in Traffic Court? Here is a Mildly Unfocused Exploration



A user recently asked a great question, and that is a rare thing here at TCP. It came in an email, and not a comment. I answered, and turned it into a blog article. Here it is: A Primer on How Hearsay Works.

QUESTION:

“Is it likely that a judge in California will call my affidavits hearsay and not allow them? If so, any arguments I can use against that and have the documentation admitted? Glad to pay for your time via paypal.”

SHORT INCOMPLETE ANSWER TO COMPLEX SUBJECT:

Simple Definition: Heresay is an “out of court statement” that cannot be cross examined in live court. If it cannot be cross examined in court, it is not reliable.

For example, a witness is heard saying “that blue car was speeding” – but the witness cannot be found to verify the statement in court. That is classic hearsay. It is an unreliable out of court statement that cannot be cross examined in live court. HEARSAY.

In general, Hearsay is unreliable evidence, and it is not allowed in court. But there are exceptions. The exceptions are generally based on whether or not there is a way to verify it.

Your own statements are not hearsay, if you are in court to testify or if you verify them in a Declaration.

There is a lot more to it, but in general, if you are present in court to verify your statements or writings you made, there is no hearsay problem.


Most documents are hearsay when presented alone. To get them admitted, you need to get the author (or custodian of records for a company’s records) to testify in court that they are real. Official government documents may be excepted in court.

You can ask the judge to admit anything. Nothing is hearsay unless someone objects. You are presumed innocent. Your own statements are evidence.

If you want to present your own info on paper, the correct way to do it is to use a “Declaration”. A “Declaration” is just a statement of evidence or facts that is signed by the author under penalty of perjury.

The way it works is like this:

I defendant, declare under penalty of perjury that the following facts are within in my personal knowledge, and are true to the best of my knowledge and understanding:

1., 2., 3., etc.

If there are documents you want to include, then like this:

Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of . . . . . .

Then, at the bottom, sign “I declare under penalty of perjury, state of ca, county of _______, that the foregoing is true.

There is a form for CA traffic court declarations [http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc030.pdf], or you can make one up if your name is Sheldon.

Declarations are used in all types of court cases. A Declaration is a way to verify something.

And there you go. A 5 minute blog article on hearsay. For free. You can pay for this article by sending $5 to www.wikileaks.org. I owe them for some info I stole a long time ago. The best way to leave this site is to click on a flashy ad and then hit the back button on your browser.

Lastly, photographs are hearsay. Red light camera photographs may fall into a statutory exception. Statements by machines (odometers, radar, lights, tape measures, breathalyzers, atm machines, Siri, and magic 8 Balls) are also hearsay. Object to them all! Unreliable statements of robocoptopia, hearsay!

If you fail to object to the entry of hearsay evidence when it is offered against you, you waive the objection usually. Police reports are filled with hearsay, so dont let the judge read them. Probation reports are based on hearsay. RAP Sheets are hearsay. Weather reports are hearsay.

Statements by dead people are hearsay. Statements to one cop about what the other cop saw on his odometer are QUADRUPLE hearsay on top of hearsay because: 1) cop tells; 2) to cop; about 3) out of court odometer reading (statement) which measures 4) tire rotations which are in fact an out of court statement by a tire!

And tires dont talk in court, now, do they? They dont answer questions about their tire pressure at the time of their out of court statement about speed. They dont answer questions in court about their circumference, and they dont answer questions from the defendant about their balance, all of which are factors that can affect the accuracy of cop 1′s statement to cop 2, even if we assume that those 2 bobbleheads told each other the truth.

Thus, that 4x hearsay is not a reliable thing in court to admit against a person who is presumed innocent! Or a person who has a Constitutional Right under the 5th and 14th Amendments to Cross Examine those who make statements against him. Right?

Posted in Arguing in Court, Judges, Traffic Court Trials, Trial by Declaration | Leave a comment