Home     Links     Contact Us     Bookmark  
   Homepage      News      Legal Forum      Dictionary  
Home : Legal Forum : Law Enforcement & Police

Is driving without a license an arrestable offense ?
Find answers to your legal question.

Is driving without a license an arrestable offense ?


In the great state of Texas, yes you can be arrested for driving without a license. It does not matter the reason why you don't have you license.

In Texas you can be arrested, given a ticket, or given a warning for any traffic violation other than Speeding and Open Container of Alcohol. It is the Police Officers decision on what he does. For Speeding or Open Container of Alcohol, the Officer has to issue a ticket or a warning. Now if you refuse to sign your ticket, you are saying you do not promise to appear in court for the ticket and can now be arrested to ensure that you do.

The charges for not having a license are:

No Valid Drivers License: Meaning you were never issued one.

Display Expired License: Meaning you were issued one and it has expired.

Fail To Display Drivers License: Meaning you have a valid drivers license, ut you do not have it with you at the time of the stop.

Driving Whlie License Invalid (DWLI): Meaning your driving privileges have been suspended for any number of reasons. This use to be called Driving While License Suspended (DWLS). A common misconception with this is that those guilty of No Valid Drivers License seem to think they can not be charged with DWLI, because they were never issued a Drivers License so how can their License be suspended. It is not the License itself that is suspended, it is your driving privileges. For years it was the other way, but the Law is not blind and eventually noticed that people were not getting their License and therefore was able to avoid the more serious crime of DWLS. So recently they changed that law.

Hope this helps and educates

CG-23 Sailor
All the answers ABOVE deesnuts are correct. with Thanson73 and John B giving the best answers.

However deesnuts needs a little taking down.

All the legal arguements you quote are meaningless because you fail to grasp one very. simple. concept.

The right to travel is garaunteed by the constitution and the legal arguements that you quote adress that very issue.

But that has NOTHING I repeat N O T H I N G to do with the right to operate a motor vehicle.

Not allowing you to drive does NOT take away your right to travel.

Driving is a priveledge, not a right

You can travel by getting on a train. a plane, a bus, a taxi, WALKING, a Bike. Hell. even a horse. But without a valid drivers license YOU cannot drive a motor vehicle

Out of ignorance or willful stupidity you are trying to make an arguement for a right (Right to travel) equate to a right that DOESN'T exist (priveledge of driving)

UPDATE: After checking out your other answers. I believe this answer of yours is out of willful stupidity rather than ignorance. You seem to be nothing more than a fring kook who believes in all that new world order, the US was behind 9/11 Conspiracy theory kook movements

deesnuts. get a life and stop drinking the koolaid

Deesnuts, You still have not addressed the root of your problem and just keep quoting things that are not valid for the point you are trying to make. You are using the right to travel as your arguement and no one (including me) is argueing against that. You do have a right to travel. and to use state highways.
You do NOT have a right to operate a motor vehicle without a license.
Your arguements are about the right to use public highways and waterways and other roads. yes you have a right to use them. but if you do not have a drivers license, you do NOT have the right to drive a car on that road yourself. or anywhere else for that matter. (except on private property, with that property owners permission)
You own a car. You do not have a license.
Your friend has a license.
You can drive the car all you want in your own driveway to your home. but drive it in the street and you are busted.

This is not saying you cannot use the street. You can.
Your friend drives the car and you are a passanger.
You are using the street (as is your right) but you are not driving, your friend is (the licensed friend)

Your whole line of arguement is BULL**** and you know it.

And whats with quoting part out of my profile? hmm? whats your point?
None as usual
You address two links to me. First one is a so-called "documentary" by Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is a total loser who has been debunked completely. He is a laughing stock JOKE to everyone but the CT's

The other link is about the USS Liberty. I know all about the Liberty. It was A US Ship that was attacked by Israel during the Arab-Israeli war back in the 60's and your point is????

Depends on why you don't have it. If it's suspended or revoked then yes. If it's valid and you just left it at home then no.

Lt. Dan reborn
What you have done is a misdemeanor, not an infraction. This means that the second you move your car forward you have already committed a traffic offense which is arrestable (it is no longer mandatory where I live, but you can be arrested).
The person who is driving without a license makes us wonder, hmm what else is going on here?
If you are talking about not merely having your license with you, that is one thing, less serious but still not a good idea.
If you don't have a driver's license period, that is another.
If 9 out of 10 illegal aliens are able to pass the driver's test in Kansas (and by our legislature get a license!) what's stopping you?
If you are perhaps legally blind, that MAY disqualify you, but even that isn't a sure bet anymore in my opinion.
So get out there, get a license and enjoy mixing it up with all those other people who may or may not have a license or insurance! Go foward and get where you're going legally, it might even be fun!

Sure is.

If you dont have one - YES
If its it's suspended - YES
If it's revoke -YES
If left at home or frogot it but have one NO!!!

That all really depends on what state you are in. I know here in CA yes it is. But have you ever had a license before and now is it suspended or have you never got one to begin with.
If you have never had one you dont get in as much trouble as you would if you had one and are now driving on a suspended.

In most states, yep.

Yes!, If you operate without a license and put yourself and others at risk you can go to jail for it. If you have an accident and someone gets hurt, and you don't have a license you can be charged with a criminal offense and be taken to jail.

Keith B
Only if you get caught.

i'm susan
in texas it is

One Sexy Jeep Girl

Yes. You will not pass GO. You will not collect $200.00.

In Missouri, anything you can be cited or writen a summons for, you can ALSO be arrested for.

In some states it is also a major violation for the DMV, which makes insurance costs skyrocket or a person is cancelled.

Brian J
uhhh yea, I would stop immediately. My dad was arrested for that once and was put in jail for 90 days.

Yes, it is.

Yes it is in many states, remember this is a state law, not national, so each state will have thier own law and rules on it.

yes it is,,,,,,some cops,,,i mean some cops,,,,lol,,,,will warn you but most will sock it to ya

With the way some people drive, it seems like it isn't. But yeah I'm pretty sure they could put you in jail if you get caught. Not worth the risk.

No. It's an infraction. You get a ticket...if you're lucky nd all things are equal.


If youve been drinking, smoking pot, weaving from lane to lane, talking on a cell, driving with no seat belt, you're underage, you match a description of a bank robber, child molestor or terrorist, or if you have drugs, broken tail lights, tinted windows too dark, slur your speech, or if theres any other probable cause the cops can use, you may very well end up being arrested for driving without a license.

Sherri ptown
If it is suspended or revoked it is, it is a ticket if you just dont have it on you.

nope! Right to Travel

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

well cg23sailor please state your facts rather than attacking the messenger." kook " as you stated. as with most "Sheeple" are people who pay their taxes and accept what the government and the mass media tell them. A piece of folk poetry circulating among conspiracy theorists puts this usage in a nutshell:

"Oh yes, I am a sheeple, and oh so proud to be.
I am way too smart to believe in a conspiracy."


please tell us what you know about this mr.cg23sailor (My Interests are mostly Naval but Military in general as well. I especially love to study WW II and the Pacific Theater.)

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf from the above movie.

update2: more facts sir,

Right to travel v. Driving privileges
"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, *and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free*, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." Northwest Ordinances, Article 4.
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27

"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.

"Constitutionally protected liberty includes... the right to travel..." 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416

In California, a license is defined as "A permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California 158 P2d 199, 300.

"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

"A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or equal protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.

"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." - PG&E v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.

"The same principles of law are applicable to them as to other vehicles upon the highway. It is therefore, the adaptation and use, rather than the form or kind of conveyance that concerns the courts." Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 74 N.E. 615.

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Moore v. Roddie, 180 P. 879, Blair v. Broadmore 93 S.E. 632.

"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . ." Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872

"Truck driver's failure to be licensed as chauffeur does not establish him or his employer as negligent as a matter of law with respect to accident in which driver was involved, in absence of any evidence that lack of such license had any casual or causal connection with the accident." Bryant v. Tulare Ice Co. (1954) 125 CA 2d 566

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

"The RIGHT to TRAVEL on the public highways is a constitutional right." Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' that a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, U.S. v. Laub 385 U.S. 475

"One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act." Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452

"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.833

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.

"CVC 17459. The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the CONSENT by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle." California Vehicle Code

"CVC 17460. The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the CONSENT of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state." California Vehicle Code

"When a person applies for and accepts a license or permit, he in effect knows the limitations of it, and takes it at the risk and consequences of transgression." Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57.

If you people who are skeptical need another example of just how BS the license-to-drive argument is (how foolish and stupid opposition is), then I direct you to: Sprinkle v Governor Ronald Reagan, his wife Nancy Reagan, District Attorney Stanley Trom, his wife Joan Trom, Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle, his wife Mary Hinkle, Judge Benjamin Ruffner, his wife Jacqueline Ruffner, Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack, Judge Richard Heaton, his wife Anne Heaton, Officer Glen White, his wife Judy White, Officer Gary Hardman, his wife Patricia Hardman, Judge Robert Soares, his wife Kathryn Soares http://countyjustice.synthasite.com/charlie-sprinkle.php This man, during the Reagan governorship of California, won by acquittal (which means the act in question can never be tried in the future, FYI). The case against him was driving without a license as well as other stupid charges. He still lives in California and still has no driver's license because the court set a precedent and it's upheld by the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Learn to study the reality and stop taking orders from idiotic sheep government employees (who are your LAWFUL SERVANTS as long as they hold office) Also, anytime police restrict your rights, you have the full power to sue the shit out of them and the corporation (government) they represent under Title 18, statute's 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code. Quit arguing for the benefit of arguing and go read the real rules of the game.

 Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:  
User Email:   
Post a comment:

Legal Discussion Forum

 I missed a fine due, Now I have a warrant for my arrest, Is there a way to solve this without going to jail?
The fine was for shoplifting, This is my first offence on my record....

 Can a probation officer drug test u in your own home if they are making a home visit?

 Why does the criminal justice system not work?

 Can you call to report dangerous drivers on the highway?
If you do, and you tell them the license plate, will the cops go to their house? Or do they have to see the dangerous driving when it's happening? (I ask because I find tailgating incredibly ...

 Describe Cops in ONE word?
i say, "Power"...

 Are all US police like the police on 'cops'?
arnt cops there to help people, not taser them?...

 Why does everyone think police need a warrant to search a car?
i see all these questions on here and these answerers say they need a warrant to search a vehicle. thats b.s. .... here in texas they only need "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is ...

 Is there anything more satisfying than Hippies being given a good batoning (London G20)?
Go on, turn on BBC News 24....

 PLEASE answer! I need advice about undercover officers.?
I am from the USA and have been having an online relationship with an officer from England.

The last time we talked he said he had a special assignment and had to be undercover for a ...

 How long does a conviction or imprisonment stay on your police record?

 Uk police being armed?
do you think that the whole UK police force should be armed instead of just having CO19 and the Flying squad( the metropolitans Armed detectives)...

 Have you ever heard of any one walking free from court after killing someone by dangerous driving?
they were driving at 41mph in a 30mph which had been lowered to 20mph due to resurfing what is the actual penalty
Additional Details
its not me its my neighbour he was freed today at ...

 Anyone like police officers?
I think that so many police officers are so hot. I was wondering if anyone shared my views....

 Can i find out what someone has been in prison for?
my ex has a new partner and i know he has been in prison, i just want to know what for, for the sake of my son i dont want him to hurt him or ...

 Arresting someone?
If you were on patrol ,pulled over a car for a traffic violation and find out that the driver was wanted for failing to appear to court how would you arrest him safely if there were passengers in the ...

 My boyfriend keeps trying to call me from the county prison.
But for some reason the operator won't let me speak to him it keeps cutting off. Is it because he's calling my cellphone with a collect number??? i don't know
Additional Details

 Why is it essential for victims of assault amd battery, as well as other violent crimes, to seek counseling?

 I'm thinking of applying to become a COP, but afraid......?
Up until the time I was about 23 or 24 I had never even gotten drunk. I never smoked cigarettes, did drugs or anything. I guess I got curious and was hanging around the wrong person and I tried pot ...

 If I have a warrant and I go to court with half of the money I owe, will the judge still send me to jail?

 If there was a fire would you...?
A. Jump out a window
B. Go grab all your belongings
C. Try and run out a nearest door
D. Fire extiguish it

Which would you pick and why
Additional Details
Ok ...

Copyright (c) 2009-2013 Wiki Law 3k Sunday, February 7, 2016 - Trusted legal information for you.
Archive: Forum  |  Forum  |  Forum  |  Links