I was upset as well reading about how the police did not have probable cause to pull her over and ask for "her papers". However it occurred to me ( until I read a portion of your post here now) that driving is a privilege, not a right. Here's how I found that out:
About 10 (almost 11) years ago, I was stopped and arrested for DUI (I live in Florida). BTW - that was the last time I ever did that. Anyway - I had to jump through many hoops to get my restricted license during pre-trial so that I could go to work. It was a royal nightmare. I discovered that there really are two entities involved in a situation like this - and I believe this applies in non DUI cases as well.
The first entity is what I call the judicial. This is the actual infraction (crime, if you will) of DUI. The criminal charge to which you are considered innocent until proven guilty. You get a lawyer, go to court and do the best you can with damage control.
The second entity is the administrative. This is the part that deals with trying to have your license re-instated. Here, you are generally percieved to be guilty until proven innocent. Many of the things I had to do to get my license back - classes, counselling, community service - were all facets of an actual sentence. And I did these before even getting to court.
Once I discovered the distinction between the two, I was able to separate them and deal with each as it's own entity - and things went better. However (and here is my point) it occurred to me that once you sign your name to the license, you have signed some of your rights away in exchange for the privelege of operating that vehicle on public roads.
I did't think it was fair at all, but then again driving was not a constitutionally guaranteed right either - at least not directly.
On another note - there are many people who do not have drivers licenses - they are usually residents of big cities where the mass transit system (and the exhorbitant parking rates) are such that it doesn't pay to have a license and vehicle.
Well, thanks for the post. I'm going to bookmark it and refer to it more later. BTW it was that incident 10 years ago that got me back to the Lord. And aside from a glass or beer or wine with meals, I haven't drank since.
Exactly right, under duress and/or fraud, and probably as a minor.
Every activity that does not harm or unreasonably endanger others is a right. Any other definition of rights is arbritrary, inconsistant and unsupportable. Automobile operation is not an inherently dangerous activity (if it IS, then why do all these people get to endanger me as a pedestrian?? Because they took a 20 question test and drove around the block once?)
Spare me.