How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 111466
Experience:  20+ Years of Employment Law Experience
10285032
Type Your Employment Law Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

IM TRUING TO FIND A TERMPLAT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS A

Customer Question

IM TRUING TO FIND A TERMPLAT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS A TRAFFIC MATTER SINCE ITS CLEAR VIOLARTION OF SUPREAM CORT CASE LAW AS A RIGHT TO TRAVEL
JA: The Employment Lawyer will need to help you with this. Have you consulted a lawyer yet?
Customer: NOPE
JA: Please give me a bit more information, so we can help you best.
Customer: OK SUPREAM COURT RULES THAT THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS A RIGHT AS A FREE PERSON STATE DL ARE PRIVLEDGES BUT DONT ROB CONSTITUTIONASL RIGHT SI JUST NEED T FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS OR SHOW JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER
JA: Is there anything else the Employment Lawyer should be aware of?
Customer: I JUST NEED TO GET POINTED TO ***** AT HOW TOY PRINTE IT U AND WHERE TO PUT THE CASE LAWS
JA: OK. Got it. I'm sending you to a secure page on JustAnswer so you can place the $5 fully-refundable deposit now. While you're filling out that form, I'll tell the Employment Lawyer about your situation and then connect you two.
Submitted: 6 months ago.
Category: Employment Law
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 6 months ago.
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
I am afraid this question is one we get frequently and I have actually personally dealt with in court. The argument you are making above is one of sovereign citizen groups and it is not something that is supported by the court including the Supreme Court and these groups misrepresent what the courts hold.
The Supreme Court has recognized a protected right to interstate travel, Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999), and the Sixth Circuit has recognized a protected right to intrastate travel, i.e., "a right to travel locally through public spaces and roadways," Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484, 494-98 (6th Cir. 2002). LULAC, 2004 WL(###) ###-####at *4.
Yet, the district court held the protected right to travel does not embody a right to a driver license or a right to a particular mode of transportation, citing Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL(###) ###-####(6th Cir.) (unpublished) (holding "there is no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle."); John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dep't of Public Safety, 147 F.Supp.2d 1369, 1375 (N.D.Ga.2001) (observing that "the Circuit Courts have uniformly held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel," and collecting cases). Further, the district court held that the right to travel, whatever its contours, is not infringed by Chapter 778 because a person who receives a certificate for driving is able to operate a motor vehicle just like a person who receives a driver license. LULAC, 2004 WL(###) ###-####at *5. Potential difficulties that may be experienced by one who does not have a driver license to use for identification purposes were held not to implicate the right to travel.
In Saenz, the Supreme Court identified three components of the right to travel: "It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens in that State." 526 U.S. at 500, 119 S.Ct. 1518.
A state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses a classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986). Tennessee's issuance of certificates for driving, which confer all the same driving privileges as driver licenses, is clearly not designed primarily to impede travel and can hardly be said to deter or penalize travel. The state's denial of state-issued photograph identification to temporary resident aliens may arguably result in inconvenience, requiring the bearer of a certificate for driving to carry other personal identification papers, but this inconvenience can hardly be said to deter or penalize travel. To the extent this inconvenience burdens exercise of the right to travel at all, the burden is incidental and negligible, insufficient to implicate denial of the right to travel. See Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38, 54 (2d Cir.2007) (collecting cases recognizing that even citizens do not have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel). Something more than a negligible or minimal impact on the right to travel is required before strict scrutiny is applied. State of Kansas v. United States, 16 F.3d 436, 442 (D.C.Cir.1994).
Thus, if you are arguing that they do not have authority to make you get a license or regulate traffic on the roads, that claim of right to travel is not a legal basis to get a citation dismissed.

Related Employment Law Questions