I appreciate when attorneys put this type information out. I haven't had a drink of alcohol in 15yrs. nor do I want to, or take any drug that would make it look like I was under the influence. That doesn't mean a corrupt cop won't try it. I'll be darned if there isn't a UA-cam showing that actually happening.
My husband is a veteran, has a TBI and Post Consussion Syndrome. He will not take any tests for the police in any way shape or form. If, because he uses cannabis that is a issue with LEO Unfortunately.... He will go to jail, and hopefully not beaten up. Because police don't understand TBI's, they take his confusion as hostility! Then he gets hurt badly 😢 Shame, he isolates himself at home. A proud veteran, isolating because he is afraid of society.
I have enjoyed all of your videos thus far and was wondering if you could do one about eavesdropping laws in Michigan and when it is actually eavesdropping. It has been the subject of some debate for me recently and was wondering if you could clear it up. Keep it up. Thanks.
bdylanfan90 Michigan law says, a participant in a private conversation may record it without the other participant’s consent without violating the statute, since such a conversation is not the “discourse of others.” See. Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 185, 670 NW2d 675 (2003) (citing Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476, 481, 324 NW2d 58 (1982)); People v Lucas, 188 Mich App 554, 576 n19, 470 NW2d 460 (1991). Therefore, where a participant in a conversation does the recording himself or herself, the Michigan act effectively adopts the federal act’s requirement that the participant’s consent by itself is sufficient. In english: if you are apart of a conversation you can record it without telling the other person.
@@AaronJBoriaPLLCPlymouth In the state of Michigan is the arresting officer required to follow specific procedures explaining to a suspect how to perform field sobriety tests that he asked the suspect to perform,can he yell and scream at the suspect and give him wrong instructions while the suspect is in the process of doing the tests,then arrest the suspect because he made one small mistake on the 9 step test. Also can the police pull a person over,yell at them to get out of their car,race them threw the field sobriety testing without even asking them for there drivers license and insurance or should I say conducting a proper traffic stop.?
Would you please make an informative video about probable cause. Like, I’m told to leave a public facility because an officer may be butt-hurt and say “leave or you will be arrested” you turn to leave an get attacked from behind and eventually arrested. I’m interested in the facts on this kinda corrupt officer.
Question for you: if you get an affidavit that you do NOT agree with the implied consent rule or speeding statutes and file it with the sectary of state, would it be legally binding in a court of law?
Well, when I was taught to drive in the military, BOTH hands OFF the steering wheel in a moving vehicle was classed as "dangerous driving" with immediate termination of licence. Not some suspension / ban - a TERMINATION of licence.
Yes but being in the military is a complete totalitarian way of life. you live in a society of, more strips , more bars, more stars, you do first, ask later, situation. That's if they give you permission to ask.@@OhSoddit
What's the definition of the term "operate" in the Statutes or codes of Michigan? Specifically in the Michigan Vehicle code? Does that apply to anything other than what is listed within that code? How about the term "person" Does that term include anything other than a legal fiction or artificial entity?
Those things aren't specifically defined in any statutes anywhere because what matters is the plain English meanings of the terms. Put down the SovCit nonsense and learn how the world really works. If you go around believing in magic, you will never win.
@rentiap: How can you be confused about what a "person" is? "Person" is a good, English word used and understood all the time. [I] As to what the word "person" means -- [A] In the law a person is a natural person. However, in addition to a natural person, the word "person" can include a non-human entity having the rights and responsibilities of a natural person. [B] So, if you are human, you are a person, both in fact and in law. In addition, certain non-human entities can be a "legal person" if they have the legal attributes of a natural person, e. g., the right to own property in its name, the ability to sue or be sued in its name, the power to contract in its name. See, for example -- [1] State v. French, 77 Haw. 222 (Haw. Ct. App. 1994), at 230-231: "...None of the provisions in HRS §§ 431:10C-104(b), 291-11.6, 286-25, and 286-102 limit their application to vehicles used for state or business purposes only. The statutes apply to persons and a "person" is defined, "[i]n general usage, [as] a human being (i.e. natural person)." Black's Law Dictionary 1142 (6th ed. 1990). And "[w]hoever" means "whatever person[.]" Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1351 (10th ed. 1993). As a result, on their faces, the statutes apply to Defendant….” [2] Beaver Cr. C. T. C. v. P.U.C., 182 Or. App. 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2002), at 568: "...With no controlling statutory definition, we refer to the commonly understood meaning of "person." Arguably, pertinent definitions of "person" include "an individual human being" or "a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 1686 (unabridged ed 1993)...." [3] City of Centerville v. Knab, 2020 Ohio 5219 (Ohio 2020), slip op, at 10: "...We give undefined words in the Constitution their common, everyday meaning, often relying on dictionary definitions to do so. Cleveland v. State at ¶ 17, 21 (lead opinion); State v. Wells, 91 Ohio St.3d 32, 34, 740 N.E.2d 1097 (2001). Black's Law Dictionary 1378 (11th Ed.2019) defines "person" as: (1) 'A human being-Also termed natural person', (2) 'The living body of a human being', and (3) 'An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human being. In this sense, the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated.' Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1686 (2002) defines "person" as 'an individual human being' or 'a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.' ..." [4] Robinson v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., 19 C 1710 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2020), slip op, at 7: "...In Illinois, the general rule is that "absent a statutory definition that expands the meaning of 'person,'" that term "refer[s] to an individual, not a legal entity." Fayfar v. CF Mgmt.-IL, LLC, No. 12 C 3013, 2012 WL 6062663, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2012) (citing People v. Christopherson, 879 N.E.2d 1035, 1037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007))…."
@@benslatten8521: Nope - I. Black's Law Dictionary is just a reference book, not law. Real law is found in the enactments of legislative bodies and published decisions of court, such as I cite. A dictionary published by a private company can't override a statute enacted by a legislature. In real life in the real world, the the legal system decides, through judicial process, disputes, disagreements, controversies, or legal questions. [A] Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal, is a tool used by courts to decide the issues brought to court for resolution. While the parties may argue what the law is that is applicable to the case, it's up to the court, in the exercise of its judicial function to decide what law actually does apply and how it applies to the facts to decide the outcome. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177), "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....." [B] Furthermore, as the Supreme Court has reminded us, Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…” And, thus in fact, in deciding cases courts use conventional dictionaries far more frequently than Black’s. [C] Searching a comprehensive law database to which I subscribe for all court decisions in which either "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" or "American Heritage Dictionary" were mentioned, I got 10,306 hits. (Expanding that conventional dictionary search to include court decisions mentioning "Oxford English Dictionary", I got 15,982 hits.) [D] But searching for all court decisions in which either "Bouvier's Law Dictionary" or "Black's Law Dictionary" were mentioned, I got only 507 hits. (And searching for all court decisions in which either "Bouvier's Legal Dictionary" or "Black's Legal Dictionary" were mentioned, I got only one hit.) [Ii] Every State has laws regulating the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on the public roads, including laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility (including the non-commercial use of automobiles or other motor vehicles on the public roads). Applicable definitions of "drive", "driver", or "motor vehicle" are found in state law, for example: [A] Alabama -- AL Code § 32-1-1.1(14): "DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." AL Code § 32-1-1.1(32): "MOTOR VEHICLE. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for electric personal assistive mobility devices." [B] Arizona -- ARS 28-101-21: " ' Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle." ARS 28-101-22: " 'Driver' means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." ARS 28-101-41: " 'Motor vehicle' : (a) Means either: (i) A self-propelled vehicle. (ii) For the purposes of the laws relating to the imposition of a tax on motor vehicle fuel, a vehicle that is operated on the highways of this state and that is propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel." [C] Florida -- FL Stat § 322.01(16): " 'Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic." FL Stat § 322.01(27): " 'Motor vehicle' means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003." [D] California -- Vehicle Code 305: " A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus." Vehicle Code 415: " (a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled. (b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian. (c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper." [E] Nothing in any of those definitions limits driving to commercial activity. [F] Other States have similar, statutory definitions which would apply to the enforcement of the State's laws. Furthermore, there's a general rule in law that if a word is not otherwise defined, the word will be understood according to its common meaning. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…”..
Making a video while driving, can get you a lot of trouble. In some states that is considered using your phone while operating a motor vehicle. It can also get you problems with being a distracted driver and not seeing problem on the road.
They can't give informed consent if intoxicated. They can grant implied consent in advance, that applies later on. Or rather, government agents assert that they have it with out recourse.
Go to your DVM, DOT,or Secretary of State, depending on your State.Ask for your driving record. It is a $10 fee in NY, and similar in other states. Hope this was helpful.
According to the 4th amendment, this law is unconstitutional and should be fought and appealed to the supreme court to be thrown out. If a person has not been drinking and they are accused of a false crime they should be able to refuse intrusion into there own body under the 4th. Not be penalized for standing up for there rights. This sounds like it is automatic guilt and under the 5th amendment you don't have to help them convict you of a crime.
Punishment for exercising your 5th Amendment is unconstitutional. Your drivers license is your livelihood. To tie forfeiting your 5th amendment to your livelihood in carrying a driver's license means a person has to prove themselves innocent. It's disgusting.
Refuse the implied consent right?? Because it's better than the dui,,,gonna lose your license anyways woth points....either way. I feel NEVER BLOW....am I wrong??
No “crime” should be chargeable by the STATE depriving rights in the process . That is the largest issue with government controlling/issuing “privilege s” it becomes subjective not objective .
so in michigan if you refuse to blow in the tester, you still commit a infraction and get fined by the government? thats totally fucked up punitive bullshit to get you to self incriminate
Seems like all are due process violations and 5th amendment violation. Revenue agents think driving means you gave up your rights, just like 4th amendment violations for no criminal offense. No victim no crime
As much as I agree with what you just said, unfortunately these arguments have been taken to several state level Supreme Courts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court which have all ruled that "implied consent" does not violate our constitutional rights. I wish that weren't the case, I'm facing one of these hearings in less than a week in which my license hangs in the balance so I've looked into this exact issue in terms of constitutionality and much to my disgust, I unfortunately found that the Supreme Court has let the citizens of this country down with their rulings on this matter.
@@bradburke8232 Part of the problem is that people seem to think that courts "rule" on things. They don't. Judges issue their opinions. No one is actually bound by those opinions. Once this magical belief in "judge speaks, reality obeys" goes away, then they won't be able to violate peoples' rights.
@@snex000 They do rule on these things though. Each judge gives an opinion and being that these courts are made up of a panel of judges, it's a case of "majority opinion wins" leading to a ruling that determines constitutional precedent on the issue at hand. That doesn't mean the same high court decades later (likely with different judges) can't take up the same issue and rule differently thus reversing the former precedent set, but these precedents are products of court "rulings" so they absolutely do rule on cases brought in front of them creating precedent that amounts to a decisive constitutional line in the sand so to speak and giving a legal guideline for judges for future cases in lower courts. That's quite literally what high courts like appeals courts, state supreme courts and the US supreme court do. The biggest issue they seem to face nowadays is political bias and donor politics tainting rulings in high courts but they typically do rule on things even if the way they ruled was questionable. *Edit* It's worth mentioning that the precedent I speak of IS binding once ruled on and becomes constitutional law. Just wanted to add that because you mentioned it in your original comment.
@@bradburke8232 Go to Article III of the constitution, and search for the word "rule" or "ruling." It's not in there. Judges do not issue rulings about cases. They issue rulings about procedure during the case, e.g. a ruling on the lawyer's objection.
@@snex000 Whether you use term "ruling", "decision", or "precedent", it's all the same. The outcome of their decision is newly established case law as it applies to constitutionality when referring to high courts. I don't determine the way our system works man, just telling you how it does.
This happened to me 30+ years ago, then I became a CDL driver [semi trucker] and learned the laws/statutes/codes ect… Gave up on being 10+ yr trucker, and I also gave up on being a driver, which is the same as a trucker, both are commercial licenses and now/today semi retired, I am just a Traveler = "No Lie-cense Required"..... On the public roads drivers [commercial] [for profit] is a privilege thus license required..... Travelers on the public roads [non-commercial/non-profit] is a "RIGHT" thus No license required!!!!!!!!!!! The Cops, Prosecutors, Judges do not like it when you know your "Rights" and the "Constitution" and the "Law" and especially whom the Statutes & Codes apply too...….. I just keep on Travel'n……...
Yep the green Bible is the contract that we are required to underprivileged driving that's why they require everyone to have her claim to have a driver's license. More of us that learn the laws and fight it in court the less they all start this s***
A motor vehicle is a vehicle used for commercial purposes. If you're not earning money while operating a vehicle you are not driving, and you are not operating a motor vehicle
It's amazing how many people agree with the corruption of Lawmakers to manipulate the constitution and law to make money. And all people that agree are the problem in this country
1 thing that should be pointed out especially in Michigan is you do not You do not have to take a field sobriety test like alongside the road acting like a monkey Only says you have to submit to 1 of 3 chemical analyzes Always go for the blood test and do not blow for the BAC
Just keep driving hands free with distracted driving looking at camera and reading off paperwork in hands. Nothing could possibly go wrong Mr Attorney.
I would like to know why I need to submit to that stuff if I'm traveling on my Constitution protected public easement right away. Leave the eagles have taken the supreme courts. The supreme Court has ruled that the people must not intimate details of the law we the people are now learning this. We own the road it's amusement right away that we own established by us for our personal conveyance. We don't need permission to use it.
Wrong -- [I] The courts have consistently ruled that the constitutionally protected right to travel does not include a right to operate an automobile or other motor vehicle without complying with state motor vehicle laws including laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration and/or proof of financial responsibility. [A] City of Mt. Vernon v. Young, 2006 Ohio 3319 (Ohio App., 2006), slip op. at 14: "...'Driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway is only one form of travel. [the requirement for a valid driver's license] does not prevent Appellant from engaging in interstate or intrastate travel by walking, running, taking a bus, a train, a bicycle or an airplane. Appellant is free to go anywhere he wishes. He is merely restricted to do so by utilizing forms of travel in which he is not the driver of a motor vehicle' State v. Stuber, Third Dist. No. 1-02-13, 2002-Ohio-3394 at ¶11...." [B] State v. Garvin, 945 A.2d 821 (R.I., 2008), at 823: "..."... defendant does not have a fundamental right to unregulated travel by automobile within this state. "[T]his [C]ourt has expressly ruled that the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a fundamental right." Allard v. Department of Transportation, 609 A.2d 930, 937 (R.I.1992) (citing Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 455 n. 9, 374 A.2d 791, 794 n. 9 (1977))...." [C] City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945, 43 Wn.App. 273 (Wash. App., 1986) at 276: "...the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27: "...Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process...." [D] State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304, 235 Mont. 291 (Mont. Supreme Court, 1988), at 307: "...one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power.Gordon v. State (1985), 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193, appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 803, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986)...." [II] And in fact, the U. S. Supreme Court has EXPRESSLY RULED THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF STATES, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE, to enact laws requiring driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility for any operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle on public roads (without regard to whether that operation is, or is not, commercial): [A] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See John Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915), at 622 (emphasis added): "...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, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states..." [B] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require proof of financial responsibility for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916). at 167: "...The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents...." [C] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), at 36 (emphasis added): "....The UNIVERSAL practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process....."
@@reflect. Who are the idiots, for believe voting is legal? Precisely how many votes does it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?
I appreciate when attorneys put this type information out. I haven't had a drink of alcohol in 15yrs. nor do I want to, or take any drug that would make it look like I was under the influence. That doesn't mean a corrupt cop won't try it. I'll be darned if there isn't a UA-cam showing that actually happening.
We need more of you out there to combat blatant disrespect to citizens trying to abide by the law. 🇺🇸🙏
My husband is a veteran, has a TBI and Post Consussion Syndrome. He will not take any tests for the police in any way shape or form.
If, because he uses cannabis that is a issue with LEO Unfortunately.... He will go to jail, and hopefully not beaten up.
Because police don't understand TBI's, they take his confusion as hostility!
Then he gets hurt badly 😢
Shame, he isolates himself at home. A proud veteran, isolating because he is afraid of society.
I have enjoyed all of your videos thus far and was wondering if you could do one about eavesdropping laws in Michigan and when it is actually eavesdropping. It has been the subject of some debate for me recently and was wondering if you could clear it up.
Keep it up. Thanks.
bdylanfan90 Michigan law says, a participant in a private conversation may record it without the other participant’s consent without violating the statute, since such a conversation is not the “discourse of others.” See. Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 185, 670 NW2d 675 (2003) (citing Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476, 481, 324 NW2d 58 (1982)); People v Lucas, 188 Mich App 554, 576 n19, 470 NW2d 460 (1991). Therefore, where a participant in a conversation does the recording himself or herself, the Michigan act effectively adopts the federal act’s requirement that the participant’s consent by itself is sufficient. In english: if you are apart of a conversation you can record it without telling the other person.
@@AaronJBoriaPLLCPlymouth In the state of Michigan is the arresting officer required to follow specific procedures explaining to a suspect how to perform field sobriety tests that he asked the suspect to perform,can he yell and scream at the suspect and give him wrong instructions
while the suspect is in the process of doing the tests,then arrest the suspect because he made one small mistake on the 9 step test.
Also can the police pull a person over,yell at them to get out of their car,race them threw the field sobriety testing without even asking them for there drivers license and insurance or should I say conducting a proper traffic stop.?
Would you please make an informative video about probable cause. Like, I’m told to leave a public facility because an officer may be butt-hurt and say “leave or you will be arrested” you turn to leave an get attacked from behind and eventually arrested.
I’m interested in the facts on this kinda corrupt officer.
Question for you: if you get an affidavit that you do NOT agree with the implied consent rule or speeding statutes and file it with the sectary of state, would it be legally binding in a court of law?
No.
cant belive you did this vid while driving ,,gesus
Well, when I was taught to drive in the military, BOTH hands OFF the steering wheel in a moving vehicle was classed as "dangerous driving" with immediate termination of licence. Not some suspension / ban - a TERMINATION of licence.
Yes but being in the military is a complete totalitarian way of life. you live in a society of, more strips , more bars, more stars, you do first, ask later, situation. That's if they give you permission to ask.@@OhSoddit
Do you know any lawyers in California who specialize in the same practice?
Habeas Corpus. Learn and avoid attorneys they are Satanic liars
What's the definition of the term "operate" in the Statutes or codes of Michigan? Specifically in the Michigan Vehicle code? Does that apply to anything other than what is listed within that code?
How about the term "person" Does that term include anything other than a legal fiction or artificial entity?
Those things aren't specifically defined in any statutes anywhere because what matters is the plain English meanings of the terms. Put down the SovCit nonsense and learn how the world really works. If you go around believing in magic, you will never win.
@rentiap: How can you be confused about what a "person" is? "Person" is a good, English word used and understood all the time.
[I] As to what the word "person" means --
[A] In the law a person is a natural person. However, in addition to a natural person, the word "person" can include a non-human entity having the rights and responsibilities of a natural person.
[B] So, if you are human, you are a person, both in fact and in law. In addition, certain non-human entities can be a "legal person" if they have the legal attributes of a natural person, e. g., the right to own property in its name, the ability to sue or be sued in its name, the power to contract in its name. See, for example --
[1] State v. French, 77 Haw. 222 (Haw. Ct. App. 1994), at 230-231:
"...None of the provisions in HRS §§ 431:10C-104(b), 291-11.6, 286-25, and 286-102 limit their application to vehicles used for state or business purposes only. The statutes apply to persons and a "person" is defined, "[i]n general usage, [as] a human being (i.e. natural person)." Black's Law Dictionary 1142 (6th ed. 1990). And "[w]hoever" means "whatever person[.]" Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1351 (10th ed. 1993). As a result, on their faces, the statutes apply to Defendant….”
[2] Beaver Cr. C. T. C. v. P.U.C., 182 Or. App. 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2002), at 568:
"...With no controlling statutory definition, we refer to the commonly understood meaning of "person." Arguably, pertinent definitions of "person" include "an individual human being" or "a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 1686 (unabridged ed 1993)...."
[3] City of Centerville v. Knab, 2020 Ohio 5219 (Ohio 2020), slip op, at 10:
"...We give undefined words in the Constitution their common, everyday meaning, often relying on dictionary definitions to do so. Cleveland v. State at ¶ 17, 21 (lead opinion); State v. Wells, 91 Ohio St.3d 32, 34, 740 N.E.2d 1097 (2001). Black's Law Dictionary 1378 (11th Ed.2019) defines "person" as: (1) 'A human being-Also termed natural person', (2) 'The living body of a human being', and (3) 'An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human being. In this sense, the term includes partnerships and other associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated.' Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1686 (2002) defines "person" as 'an individual human being' or 'a human being, a body of persons, or a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.' ..."
[4] Robinson v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., 19 C 1710 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2020), slip op, at 7: "...In Illinois, the general rule is that "absent a statutory definition that expands the meaning of 'person,'" that term "refer[s] to an individual, not a legal entity." Fayfar v. CF Mgmt.-IL, LLC, No. 12 C 3013, 2012 WL 6062663, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2012) (citing People v. Christopherson, 879 N.E.2d 1035, 1037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007))…."
Read the definition in Blacks Law Dictionary.
"Plain English" is not how you define legal terms.
@@benslatten8521: Nope -
I. Black's Law Dictionary is just a reference book, not law. Real law is found in the enactments of legislative bodies and published decisions of court, such as I cite. A dictionary published by a private company can't override a statute enacted by a legislature. In real life in the real world, the the legal system decides, through judicial process, disputes, disagreements, controversies, or legal questions.
[A] Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal, is a tool used by courts to decide the issues brought to court for resolution. While the parties may argue what the law is that is applicable to the case, it's up to the court, in the exercise of its judicial function to decide what law actually does apply and how it applies to the facts to decide the outcome. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177), "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....."
[B] Furthermore, as the Supreme Court has reminded us, Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…” And, thus in fact, in deciding cases courts use conventional dictionaries far more frequently than Black’s.
[C] Searching a comprehensive law database to which I subscribe for all court decisions in which either "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" or "American Heritage Dictionary" were mentioned, I got 10,306 hits. (Expanding that conventional dictionary search to include court decisions mentioning "Oxford English Dictionary", I got 15,982 hits.)
[D] But searching for all court decisions in which either "Bouvier's Law Dictionary" or "Black's Law Dictionary" were mentioned, I got only 507 hits. (And searching for all court decisions in which either "Bouvier's Legal Dictionary" or "Black's Legal Dictionary" were mentioned, I got only one hit.)
[Ii] Every State has laws regulating the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on the public roads, including laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility (including the non-commercial use of automobiles or other motor vehicles on the public roads). Applicable definitions of "drive", "driver", or "motor vehicle" are found in state law, for example:
[A] Alabama --
AL Code § 32-1-1.1(14): "DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle."
AL Code § 32-1-1.1(32): "MOTOR VEHICLE. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for electric personal assistive mobility devices."
[B] Arizona --
ARS 28-101-21: " ' Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle."
ARS 28-101-22: " 'Driver' means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle."
ARS 28-101-41: " 'Motor vehicle' :
(a) Means either:
(i) A self-propelled vehicle.
(ii) For the purposes of the laws relating to the imposition of a tax on motor vehicle fuel, a vehicle that is operated on the highways of this state and that is propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel."
[C] Florida --
FL Stat § 322.01(16): " 'Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic."
FL Stat § 322.01(27): " 'Motor vehicle' means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003."
[D] California --
Vehicle Code 305: " A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus."
Vehicle Code 415: " (a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
(b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.
(c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper."
[E] Nothing in any of those definitions limits driving to commercial activity.
[F] Other States have similar, statutory definitions which would apply to the enforcement of the State's laws. Furthermore, there's a general rule in law that if a word is not otherwise defined, the word will be understood according to its common meaning. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…”..
We live in a police state.
Making a video while driving, can get you a lot of trouble. In some states that is considered using your phone while operating a motor vehicle. It can also get you problems with being a distracted driver and not seeing problem on the road.
Stop smoking less crack-cocaine please
I would say if an officer thinks you are impared, then you couldn't possibly give consent. Consent from an impaired person isn't consent
They can't give informed consent if intoxicated.
They can grant implied consent in advance, that applies later on. Or rather, government agents assert that they have it with out recourse.
This feels like a really stupid question, but how can you check how many points are on your license?
Go to your DVM, DOT,or Secretary of State, depending on your State.Ask for your driving record. It is a $10 fee in NY, and similar in other states. Hope this was helpful.
How about if the police had no probable cause to pull you over to begin with.?
According to the 4th amendment, this law is unconstitutional and should be fought and appealed to the supreme court to be thrown out. If a person has not been drinking and they are accused of a false crime they should be able to refuse intrusion into there own body under the 4th. Not be penalized for standing up for there rights. This sounds like it is automatic guilt and under the 5th amendment you don't have to help them convict you of a crime.
Punishment for exercising your 5th Amendment is unconstitutional. Your drivers license is your livelihood. To tie forfeiting your 5th amendment to your livelihood in carrying a driver's license means a person has to prove themselves innocent. It's disgusting.
The government is always full of shit when they pass laws for their own profit, its socialism.
Right? It's bullshit.
Refuse the implied consent right?? Because it's better than the dui,,,gonna lose your license anyways woth points....either way. I feel NEVER BLOW....am I wrong??
Have you considered not drinking and driving?
No “crime” should be chargeable by the STATE depriving rights in the process . That is the largest issue with government controlling/issuing “privilege s” it becomes subjective not objective .
so in michigan if you refuse to blow in the tester, you still commit a infraction and get fined by the government? thats totally fucked up punitive bullshit to get you to self incriminate
It's actually in every state except Every state says that you only have to give 1 of 3 chemical analysis never do a BAC Always go for the blood test
They used implied consent to search my car because the door was open….maybe that’s a Louisiana thing
Seems like all are due process violations and 5th amendment violation. Revenue agents think driving means you gave up your rights, just like 4th amendment violations for no criminal offense. No victim no crime
As much as I agree with what you just said, unfortunately these arguments have been taken to several state level Supreme Courts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court which have all ruled that "implied consent" does not violate our constitutional rights. I wish that weren't the case, I'm facing one of these hearings in less than a week in which my license hangs in the balance so I've looked into this exact issue in terms of constitutionality and much to my disgust, I unfortunately found that the Supreme Court has let the citizens of this country down with their rulings on this matter.
@@bradburke8232 Part of the problem is that people seem to think that courts "rule" on things. They don't. Judges issue their opinions. No one is actually bound by those opinions. Once this magical belief in "judge speaks, reality obeys" goes away, then they won't be able to violate peoples' rights.
@@snex000 They do rule on these things though. Each judge gives an opinion and being that these courts are made up of a panel of judges, it's a case of "majority opinion wins" leading to a ruling that determines constitutional precedent on the issue at hand. That doesn't mean the same high court decades later (likely with different judges) can't take up the same issue and rule differently thus reversing the former precedent set, but these precedents are products of court "rulings" so they absolutely do rule on cases brought in front of them creating precedent that amounts to a decisive constitutional line in the sand so to speak and giving a legal guideline for judges for future cases in lower courts. That's quite literally what high courts like appeals courts, state supreme courts and the US supreme court do. The biggest issue they seem to face nowadays is political bias and donor politics tainting rulings in high courts but they typically do rule on things even if the way they ruled was questionable. *Edit* It's worth mentioning that the precedent I speak of IS binding once ruled on and becomes constitutional law. Just wanted to add that because you mentioned it in your original comment.
@@bradburke8232 Go to Article III of the constitution, and search for the word "rule" or "ruling." It's not in there. Judges do not issue rulings about cases. They issue rulings about procedure during the case, e.g. a ruling on the lawyer's objection.
@@snex000 Whether you use term "ruling", "decision", or "precedent", it's all the same. The outcome of their decision is newly established case law as it applies to constitutionality when referring to high courts. I don't determine the way our system works man, just telling you how it does.
This happened to me 30+ years ago, then I became a CDL driver [semi trucker] and learned the laws/statutes/codes ect… Gave up on being 10+ yr trucker, and I also gave up on being a driver, which is the same as a trucker, both are commercial licenses and now/today semi retired, I am just a Traveler = "No Lie-cense Required"..... On the public roads drivers [commercial] [for profit] is a privilege thus license required..... Travelers on the public roads [non-commercial/non-profit] is a "RIGHT" thus No license required!!!!!!!!!!! The Cops, Prosecutors, Judges do not like it when you know your "Rights" and the "Constitution" and the "Law" and especially whom the Statutes & Codes apply too...….. I just keep on Travel'n……...
BS
Yep the green Bible is the contract that we are required to underprivileged driving that's why they require everyone to have her claim to have a driver's license. More of us that learn the laws and fight it in court the less they all start this s***
A motor vehicle is a vehicle used for commercial purposes. If you're not earning money while operating a vehicle you are not driving, and you are not operating a motor vehicle
🙄
No, it's a vehicle with a motor. Put down the SovCit nonsense.
It's amazing how many people agree with the corruption of Lawmakers to manipulate the constitution and law to make money. And all people that agree are the problem in this country
1 thing that should be pointed out especially in Michigan is you do not You do not have to take a field sobriety test like alongside the road acting like a monkey Only says you have to submit to 1 of 3 chemical analyzes Always go for the blood test and do not blow for the BAC
Just keep driving hands free with distracted driving looking at camera and reading off paperwork in hands. Nothing could possibly go wrong Mr Attorney.
did anyting go wrong?
,, @@congoparrot,, me thinks Bob is just another Darren...
No hands on the steering wheel while driving, reading a letter while
driving. Good grief! Credibility?
He is an incredibly good multitasker 😮
I would like to know why I need to submit to that stuff if I'm traveling on my Constitution protected public easement right away. Leave the eagles have taken the supreme courts. The supreme Court has ruled that the people must not intimate details of the law we the people are now learning this. We own the road it's amusement right away that we own established by us for our personal conveyance. We don't need permission to use it.
Wrong --
[I] The courts have consistently ruled that the constitutionally protected right to travel does not include a right to operate an automobile or other motor vehicle without complying with state motor vehicle laws including laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration and/or proof of financial responsibility.
[A] City of Mt. Vernon v. Young, 2006 Ohio 3319 (Ohio App., 2006), slip op. at 14:
"...'Driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway is only one form of travel. [the requirement for a valid driver's license] does not prevent Appellant from engaging in interstate or intrastate travel by walking, running, taking a bus, a train, a bicycle or an airplane. Appellant is free to go anywhere he wishes. He is merely restricted to do so by utilizing forms of travel in which he is not the driver of a motor vehicle' State v. Stuber, Third Dist. No. 1-02-13, 2002-Ohio-3394 at ¶11...."
[B] State v. Garvin, 945 A.2d 821 (R.I., 2008), at 823:
"..."... defendant does not have a fundamental right to unregulated travel by automobile within this state. "[T]his [C]ourt has expressly ruled that the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a fundamental right." Allard v. Department of Transportation, 609 A.2d 930, 937 (R.I.1992) (citing Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 455 n. 9, 374 A.2d 791, 794 n. 9 (1977))...."
[C] City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945, 43 Wn.App. 273 (Wash. App., 1986) at 276:
"...the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27: "...Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process...."
[D] State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304, 235 Mont. 291 (Mont. Supreme Court, 1988), at 307: "...one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power.Gordon v. State (1985), 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193, appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 803, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986)...."
[II] And in fact, the U. S. Supreme Court has EXPRESSLY RULED THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF STATES, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE, to enact laws requiring driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility for any operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle on public roads (without regard to whether that operation is, or is not, commercial):
[A] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See John Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915), at 622 (emphasis added):
"...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, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states..."
[B] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require proof of financial responsibility for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916). at 167: "...The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents...."
[C] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), at 36 (emphasis added): "....The UNIVERSAL practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process....."
Blame the cops, while re-electing those that actually enact laws?! Blame voters, not cops. Can we sue voters?
It’s the politicians AND the police. Otherwise, why are the police choosing to enforce these Orwellian laws?
@@reflect. Who are the idiots, for believe voting is legal?
Precisely how many votes does it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?
Too much noise to understand what you’re saying!
Older video. Newer videos I’m using a mic. Apologies.