Oregon suspending licenses
What business is it of Oregon to do a random sampling of who has auto insurance and then suspending licenses?We did an exploration of a rather odd practice of the Department of Motor Vehicles in Oregon. They send out 52,000 of these surveys every year. They pick them at random.
They send them out and if you don’t send them back they send out a warning. If you don’t respond they will suspend your driver’s license.
Imagine all the reasons you might not respond. Maybe you don’t look through your junk mail well enough.
An awful lot of Oregonians are finding themselves with suspended driver’s licenses which then have to be reinstated. That costs money. In some cases people find their cars being towed. They are being accused of crimes like “driving while suspended”.
It’s a ridiculous program and somebody needs to rescind it and let the DMV know that this is not good customer service and it is not solving any problems.
“For more Lars click here”
It’s a ridiculous program and somebody needs to rescind it and let the DMV know that this is not good customer service and it is not solving any problems.
“For more Lars click here”
They need to check in the field, though, and not through the mail.
Having had my vehicle towed for 'driving uninsured' when I was infact insured, I can assure you, between the $264 fine, the $200 fee to the Sheriff's office to release my vehicle and $180 tow fee, had it not been for a relative...I would have lost my car.
They only hold the cars for 5 days before they initiate the lien process to sell the car. By the time you have your day in court, your car is gone! The tickets all give a court date two weeks out. If you plead not guilty, it's another week before you get a trial by judge. A jury trial can be an additional two weeks.
My wife was subjected to having the car towed, then being searched by a male cop and treated like a criminal because she couldn't find her insurance card (In was in the center console but she missed it). $644 we get our car back with extensive front end damage caused by the tow company because the driver was new and had no clue how to use his equipment. And we had no recourse.
Driving uninsured in the State of Oregon is a VIOLATION not a CRIME. There is an important distinction between the two.
The voters in Oregon voted a while back to abolish asset forfeiture (although it has been challenged by bureaucrats who disliked the loss of revenue it caused) because it was unconstitutional.
Let me give you this scenario...And before you cry that it's just hypothetical...it's happened...
You get pulled over at 0245. You're out because you're coming home from taking a loved one to the ER. Cop asks for license, registration and Proof of Insurance.
You open your glove box to retrieve your registration and insurance card...but your insurance card is not in there. You tell the officer that you are insured but that you've misplaced the card.
You were pulled over for having a brake light out last week and the officer didn't return all your info. Maybe your husband needed the policy number and forgot to put the card back in the car...
For what ever reason, you don't have it. Now, a few years back, LEO's in Oregon got the ability to check about insurance in the field. I've yet to see it used. The DMV theoretically has the ability to verify insurance too.
You don't have your proof of insurance on you and that's all that matters. The cop asks you to step out of the car, hands you a ticket and tells you he's towing your car for driving uninsured. You've committed no crime under Oregon Law, but your sure as heck treated as if you had. Now, in addition to the ticket, you have to pay a fee to the Sheriff's office in order to get them to release YOUR car in addition to what ever the tow company charges for the tow and impound.
If you can't get your car back in 5 days, then they will start the process to get a lien so they can sell your car. And you get nothing.
Think you can prove in court that your not guilty. Under Oregon Law, failure to provide proof of insurance is prima face evidence that you are uninsured, same as if you forget your wallet and when pulled over you don't have your DL on you. Oh, and they can tow your car for that too.
The police are under NO obligation to check your insurance status in the field, nor your DL status in the field. If you can't show it, they can assume that you don't have it and tow your vehicle.
That is something that we should all have a problem with. I know that there have been several times that I've gone somewhere and realized I forgot my wallet. I've had my vehicle stolen and lost my Proof of Insurance AND my wallet.
Sorry, I can't agree with towing a car for no insurance.
Oh, and Lars...Driving while suspended is not a crime but is a violation. Felony driving while suspended/revoked is a crime.
If this is the gripe against government -- DMV checking on insurance -- we are pretty lucky. Lars is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
(Admittedly it is such a progressive idea.)
Maybe you would like to fill out a obesity form before being allowed to buy food?
Sieg Heil!
Thanks
JK
\
By the way, the allusion to the Nazis is both vicious and appallingly stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself, you dirty thing.
I'll bet you also think it's OK for the government to randomly search people's homes.
Just so you don't miss it: this is fascist behavior of the type millions of people died to stop. And you are advocating it. sieg heil.
Thanks
JK
My understanding is that once a contact has been legally made, such as a traffic stop, then police are free to ask about immigration status. Just like in many other states and the Feds.
Do you know otherwise (I have not studied the actual law.)
Jim Karlock is absolutely correct in that Oregon citizens should not be forced to prove innocence but the state should always carry the burden of guilt. It amazes me how liberals act concerned about some rights, like nude dancing as freedom of speech, but ignore others like the ability to drive to work, school, or worship. It is hypocrisy but I suppose the first person who can't drive to get their medical marijuana will sway their opinion.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for digressing back into bullying. Raise your game.
In the second place, and more seriously, it IS dirty to compare a trivial reporting requirement, however misguided or not it may be, to anything having to do with the Nazis. The Nazi talk is "not impolite"? Well, yes it is impolite, and a lot worse.
By the way, I always objected when such comparisons were made about Bush and Cheney (with much more reason, I might add; they did invade a country on the grounds that it might be a threat to us; bombing the hell out of a country, then invading and ruining it, is a much different matter than sending a survey.)
Oh, I also defend Obama now when people on the right call him a Nazi or Stalinist.
I don't see a post of yours coming before Jim's comment so I don't see how he could be accused of calling you a Nazi. If I am mistaken please correct otherwise your justification fails. His response to your earliest post had no mention of Nazi's.
Many of us question whether or not it is trivial to have a government agency presume guilt and force citizens to prove otherwise. Has 'innocent until proven guilty' been replaced by 'administratively guilty until you can prove your innocence'? That slippery slope shifts power away from citizens toward the state. Individual liberty is the foundation of western civilization. From the Magna Carta to our own Constitution we have celebrated the victory of the powerless individual over the omnipotent state. Why should we allow that power to shift back? Why would liberals support that shift? For that matter why would liberals create forbidden words or imagery? Nazi is merely shorthand for totalitarian government power and the abuses that come from it.
So this is not trivial and I can't see where anyone called anybody else a Nazi before your insult. An apology is owed by you to him.
Again, comparing the reporting requirement -- whether it is trivial, which I think it is, or even if it's not -- to anything having to do with the Nazis -- is just plain deranged, as well as viciously stupid.
Thanks
JK
Does it?
I doubt it. It's probably one of these things that sounds good but doesn't pan out in implementation.
No one has the responsibility for checking so it becomes a whole lotta work that does nothing but annoys and harasses the public while accomplishing little or nothing towards insurance compliance.
But we have no "Debt of Measuring Merit" in government services and so there are endless tasks in the mission creeping government which provide no or little corresponding public benefit.
Seems to me this is very much Oregon's business!
Prove you didn't jay walk today
Prove you didn't shoplift today.
Prove you didn't show you ignorance of basic rights today.
Thanks
JK
Proof of insurance is not proof of innocence, because there hasn't been any charge. And you are belittling what the Nazis did by comparing innocuous state actions to a level of human depravity and evil you are obviously not familiar with. I suggest a visit to Auschwitz to clear your head.
Steve P writes: "Driving has become such an integral part of daily life why do we still call it a privilege rather than a right? "
I guess you are in favor of eliminating drivers licenses then? Age restrictions? Eyesight tests? As well as personal insurance. Maybe traffic lights and stop signs should be next on your list.
But jut so we know, where do you draw the line on this new "right?"
JK: No, they just suspend your license without a judicial proceeding.
Very Naziesque. No surprise that Portland's progressives support this outrage. They are right at home.
Thanks
JK
And spell my name right.
They are not being given the oppurtunity to face their accusers, answer the charges or even prove their innocence before losing their license. Good Lord? What happens if someone never even received the survey (it does happen that the USPS loses mail, as unbelievable as that sounds), should they have their licenses suspended?
And what of someone who has a drivers license but does not have insurance because the only vehicle he/she drives is for work, owned and insured by their employer? That was me last year. I rode the bus to and from work, but my job required me to drive. I drove a company vehicle with company insurance.
Suspending my license for no insurance...HORSEAPPLES! The law does not require you to have insurance to have a DL. It requires that the vehicle you are driving is insured!
JK: Dean is progressive. He doesn't believe in individual rights, only collective rights.
Thanks
JK
Where do you get this stuff Jim? From Rupert?
I don't live in Portland, but I certainly "understand" basic freedoms. There is no constitutional right to drive a car absent insurance on that car. If there was we would know it by now.
As for this "due process" issue, I just don't buy it. It is more like a random drunk driving net. If cops stop cars randomly to check for drunk drivers, doesn't everyone stopped have to show they are not drunk? No one has been charged, but everyone is checked in some manner. I may not like the hassle of being checked up on, but I won't argue they don't have the right to do so.
As for Steven, can't we assume that the DMV uses vehicle registration rather than driver's licenses as its means for contacting car owners on the insurance question?
How about random searches of houses?
How about random stops of drivers to check their papers?
How about random stops of people to check their papers.
How about random letters to people demanding proof of citizenship?
As to the bunch at the ACLU, get back to us when they recognize that the bill of rights has 10 sections. Including property rights, states rights, and the second amendment.
It is truly unbelievable how intrusive you think government should be.
Thanks
JK
Random searches of houses for what? See the 4th amendment.
Random stops of drivers to ask for what papers? You must think this is Arizona.
There is constitutional protection for property rights other than the takings clause. I don't think the ACLU has any problem with that clause, do you?
It is unbelievable that you support torture but don't want in intrusive government.
JK: A letter asking for proof of legal residency is just that. Prove you are here legally.
Dean: You have not been accused of not having insurance.
JK: You have not been accused of being here illegally.
Dean: you have not been accused of a crime.
JK: you have not been accused of a crime.
Dean: Capiche?
JK: Get it - its police state. Its fascist!
Its also a double standard to say it is OK to demand proof that you are complying with one law that you happen to agree with and it not OK in the other case. But that's the foundation of the modern progressive movement - really police state wrapped in caring terms.
Dean: There is constitutional protection for property rights other than the takings clause. I don't think the ACLU has any problem with that clause, do you?
JK: Unless the government wants to take YOUR land an give it to Walmart - that is OK.
JK: Unless the government wants to take the value out of your land without paying you.
Tell me where the ACLU has been on these cases. Tell us where YOU are on these cases?
Thanks
JK
Talk to your friends on the right about the Arizona immigration law, their support for Bush-Cheney torture, and their being anti right to choose. But come to think of it, none of this is wrapped in even a pretense of caring. Its wrapped in fear, which is the emotion that does lead to ceding of indiividual rights.
"Tell me where the ACLU has been on these cases. Tell us where YOU are on these cases?"
Can't speak for the ACLU. Where I am is happy with the constitutional protection as is. Meaning that if the government wants my land for a public purpose, it has to pay me fair compensation. Now defining public purpose? Its a mixed bag. Should a private utility be able to condemn my land to build a pipeline to deliver a private product to someone else? Philosophically no. but as a practical matter probably yes.
JK: I have. They tell me that it is ONLY allows the AZ police to enforce the existing federal law. ONLY if they have stopped someone for some other, legal, cause. They cannot stop someone because of the new law. It only allows (requires??) Legal residency questions AFTER A LEGALLY JUSTIFIED CONTACT for some other cause.
Deam Apostle: their being anti right to choose.
JK: I keep telling them that this position is losing elections and that if they dropped it and the gay stuff they would win Oregon’s big cities and take over the state. Even before me, they have started to realize this and you and your political buddies are probably in deep political do do starting with the next election .
Deam Apostle: Its wrapped in fear, which is the emotion that does lead to ceding of indiividual rights.
JK: Fear & Emotion!! That is the main stay of the democrats: Global cooling. Global warming. Cuddly (killer) polar bears. Climate careening out of control. Mass extinctions. Gun control. Peak oil. Most environmental issues spewed by the multinational, multimillion dollar green sham corporations like the Sireea Club. Its all bull shat. And the progressives swallow it hook-line & sinker. (Mostly because they are ignorant of basic economics and basic science. They will do anything to save the earth except study science.)
Deam Apostle: "Tell me where the ACLU has been on these cases. Tell us where YOU are on these cases?"
JK: The government should NOT have the power to take land an give it to any private party, excepting easements for utilities.
JK: The government must pay to reduce the value of your land.
Any more questions about basic rights? Would you like a lesson on free speech or self defense?
Deam Apostle: Can't speak for the ACLU. Where I am is happy with the constitutional protection as is.
JK: So you are comfortable with:
the government being able to take your land and give it to Walmart or Costco.
The government telling you that you can’t do anything with your land.
The drug laws.
And no-nock warrants, dynamic entry, killing innocents and all that.
Shame on you!
Deam Apostle: Meaning that if the government wants my land for a public purpose, it has to pay me fair compensation.
JK: Tell us how much compensation your neighbors got for having their land zoned open spaces (or other zones that prohibit building.) Remind us what they zoned YOUR land to.
Deam Apostle: Now defining public purpose? Its a mixed bag.
JK: If they cause a loss of value, they should pay. Too bad you cannot see that.
Thanks
JK
You think checking for car insurance equates to what the Nazis did? The best that can be said is that you are deranged.
It is truly telling that many of Portland's progressives can't understand basic freedoms.
Thanks
JK
Could it be Steve, that you only find an argument lacking when it counters your own position? Or am I being reductio again?
Your arguments take my positions and reduce them to an absurd level. I would not be opposed to drivers licenses or insurance. I argue the state should recognize the citizen's right to do what is common and necessary for modern daily life. It's not that I find your argument lacking because it's contrary to mine, I just find it lacking.
That being said, when one considers that virtually all local police departments have direct access to the insurance provider's databases already and are able to determine whether someone has insurance on their vehicle simply by running a check on the license plate, it seems like a waste of DMV resources to devote any time or effort towards this, in my humble opinion....