Tags: attorney, brake, brhi, citation, defective, insurance, law, lawyer, legal, light, possess, pulled, state, texas, traffic

No Insurance citation - Texas

On Lawyer & Legal » Traffic Law

11,566 words with 10 Comments; publish: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:47:00 GMT; (800108.40, « »)

The state is: ?

Hi, I was pulled over for a defective brake light. I also do not possess a D.L because of a surcharge I owe to the DPS, but my vehicle is titled to both my spouse & I and I have been paying insurance.

I was given a ticket for the defective brake light, no D.L and no insurance. I promptly took care of the brake light, but went to court on the other 2 tickets.

My court date was reset because I've been trying to negotiate with the DPS on the surcharges I owe them.

However, I'm a little confused as to the 'No Insurance' ticket, because my vehicle is insured and has been insured for the past 3 yrs. without lapse.

The explanation the police ofcr. gave me; was because I have no DL I cant have insurance, but when I went to court and explained to the judge that the car is titled to me and does in fact have an effective insurance policy, how can I be cited for having no insurance? Even the city attorney presiding with that judge couldn't come up with an effective answer, his response was directed to the judge asking for his opinion.

They just reset my court date for 11/13/08...

I also spoke with a insurance agent and was told that the law does not state that you have to have a DL to purchase insurance for a vehicle... so what gives?

Is there anyone that has run across something like this, if so, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

thanks in advance...

All Comments

Leave a comment...

  • 10 Comments
    • Okay....sorry for my delayed reply.....

      Anyhow, I told the judge that I had been trying to negotiate with the dps on paying the surcharges for getting my D/L back, but that I was somewhat confused, because I couldn't get a straight answer on whether the 'no insurance' ticket was a valid citation since I was the titled owner of the car and have been paying insurance without laspe...

      He really didn't give a clear response, but did give the opinion that the insurance & d/l was a 2 component deal...usually coming hand in hand with one another. I then told him that I had asked my agent and she told me that the law doesn't state that you have to have a d/l to purchase auto ins. ...he just looked at me and reset my case...

      Is there maybe a good reason why his decision on my no insurance case is being somewhat delayed, other than maybe he's trying to give me more time to come up with some $$ to start paying my surcharge?

      On another note, I was surfing the web to see what other info I could find on these 'surcharges' and I ran across an article that states these surcharges are unconstitutional;

      Read below:

      I am of the opinion that the DWI surcharge is unconstitutional. The argument follows that if the surcharge is deemed to be a fine and thus punishment, it is a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution which protects individuals from being punished twice for the same offense because the surcharge amounts to nothing more than a second punishment for the same offense. The State of Texas deliberately used the word "surcharge" rather than "fine so that a surcharge would not be viewed as an unconstitutional second punishment when the statute was eventually reviewed by the appellate courts. Hopefully, such tricks with words will not fool the appellate courts and they will see the surcharge for what it really is: an unconstitutional form of punishment. Until the appellate courts find the surcharge statute unconstitutional, however, if you meet requirements of the statute, you must live with its economic consequences if you want to keep your driving privileges.

      Drivers License Information (link provided ref. purposes only)

      #1; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:39:00 GMT
    • DPS, I don't know how they continue to get away with this, but even someone arrested for possession of marijuana under whatever amount it is that leaves it as a misdemeanor, imposes a $1, surcharge, whether the person was operating a motor vehicle or not.

      It's not the DMV. It's the DPS (Department of Public Safety). After someone has been ordered to pay the fines and court costs for such an offense, they get a notice in the mail from DPS stating they have 3 to pays the $1, , or call the number given and set up a payment plan.

      My step-son went through this. I was appalled that he was in essence being dinged twice for the same offense.

      Texas is nothing more than a money state when it comes to offenses of any kind.

      #2; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:31:00 GMT
    • You need to show the judge the current insurance showing that the vehicle was insured at the time of the stop. This should be enough to have the ticket dismissed. If you're convicted you can appeal the case.
      #3; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:08:00 GMT
    • The Fifth Amendment is probably best known for granting Americans the right to remain silent. Though Americans are familiar with this through popular media, it is not the limit of the Fifth Amendment.

      Fifth Amendment Provides Many Rights

      This Amendment guarantees many other fundamental rights to persons accused of crimes including rights to a jury trial, to remain silent and to a grand jury review of charges. It also guarantees that the government cannot keep trying to convict someone of a crime over and over again.

      This is through the Double Jeopardy Clause. The prohibition against double jeopardy in the United States protects the legal systems integrity as an accused citizens rights. In the U.S., to prosecute an individual twice for the same crime is unconstitutional.

      Without the Double Jeopardy clause, a criminally accused defendant could be tried over and over, even after an acquittal. Potentially the government could try someone more than once for the same crime, until the odds favor a conviction.

      The Double Jeopardy Clause also protects people from being punished more than once for the same behavior. Once a judge has pronounced a sentence, no additional punishment may be imposed for the same criminal act.

      Double Jeopardy Applies to Both State and Federal Government

      This applies not only to the federal government but to the states as well. The Fifth Amendment has applied to the federal government since it was ratified in 1791. In 1937 The United States Supreme Court ruled that the states were also prohibited from multiple prosecutions for the same conduct.

      what do any of you think on the constitutionality of a second charge for the same crime?

      #4; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:55:00 GMT
    • Thanks for the reply.

      I'll see what happens tomorrow, hopefully I won't have to appeal it.

      #5; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:16:00 GMT
    • Quote:
      === Original Words ===

      I am of the opinion that the DWI surcharge is unconstitutional. The argument follows that if the surcharge is deemed to be a fine and thus punishment, it is a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution which protects individuals from being punished twice for the same offense because the surcharge amounts to nothing more than a second punishment for the same offense.

      You'll lose that argument. That's long been decided that the administrative sanctions from the DMV do not compose double jeopardy with respect to a related criminal charge.
      #6; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:03:00 GMT
    • Quote:
      === Original Words ===

      You'll lose that argument. That's long been decided that the administrative sanctions from the DMV do not compose double jeopardy with respect to a related criminal charge.
      Okay...I'm no lawyer, which is the reason for coming to this forum, so I really don't understand in full when you say administrative sanctions.

      Can you please explain what sanctions the DMV has that protects it from the double jeopardy clause?

      If you really think about it...when you get convicted and are sentenced with all the fines/penalties/fees/probation/classes/drug testing to the county & state and anything else they decide....you have to pay them for that crime & conviction, not to mention being on probation for the time agreed...then steps in the 'state' (DMV) after everything is said & done and says; now you owe us money for the same conviction and cannot drive until you pay us, imo, you are being punished 'twice' for the same crime.

      when my conviction happen I was automatically suspended from driving for 90 days...isn't this also a punishment?

      ...and what about all the other fees & sr22's you have to pay before you can drive. aren't these also administrative penalties....

      My question isn't just for my incidence, but here in TX almost any ticket comes with a surcharge from DMV and if you don't/cant pay it, you cant drive.

      what is a fine on a ticket for, if its not a punishment for breaking the law?

      sorry, i know I have alot of questions and even may seem ignorant to the subject, but the day I went to court here recently, I couldn't help but over see other cases before me and heard the ruling on one case in which; The girl was driving her aunts car w/no d/l & no ins; her aunts car was insured, but because the girl wasn't named on the ins card or the title, she was cited for not having ins or d/l, but the girl had rec'd her d/l before court and that ticket was dismissed, but was found guilty on the no ins.

      the girl explained that the car was in fact insured....here's what the judge said: If she had been named on the ins. card or was named on the title he would have been able to dismiss it...

      so what is the actual rule on a 'no ins' citation?

      #7; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:28:00 GMT
    • The surcharges for licenses are not considered criminal penalties on their own but rather the cost of getting a license which is variable based on your past driving history.

      If you want to argue this, sure start filing lawsuits, or go over to some constitutional law discussion site and argue it there. This is a "how it is" site not a "how I wish it should be" one.

      As for the insurance, it's in section 601 of Texas Transportation Code. The issue is whether the insurance for the VECHICLE would provide the financial responsibility while the PERSON is operating it. If Aunties's insurance would cover her (often they will as a casual legal user), then she would not be guilty. However given the fact she was operating beyond what the insurance would cover, she is in violation.

      #8; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:34:00 GMT
    • Look around you. There are insurance companies all over Texas that offer the illegals insurance, and absolutely know they have no D.L. It is a common business practice in Texas. While you should be thanking your lucky stars you weren't arrested, (no D.L. is an arrestable offense in Texas), it is still not a prerequisite to obtaining insurance, to have a valid D.L.

      Insurance companies could not sell insurance to the unlicensed public if it were law that you had to have a valid D.L. before purchasing insurance.

      Get your fees straight with DPS. That ex-post facto deal there will destroy you in motoring down Texas' fine highways

      #9; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:15:00 GMT
    • Thanks for the reply....

      So do you think they can legally charge me for no insurance?

      #10; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:48:00 GMT