Eleanor Finch
Driving is widely considered a privilege, not a right, and is therefore not protected by the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to declare that driving is a fundamental right, which would require a high degree of protection from government encroachment. This issue is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Beylund v. Levi, which involves the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to refuse a warrantless test of one's breath or blood to determine blood alcohol content.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Driving is a privilege | Yes |
| Driving is a right | No |
| Driving requires a license | Yes |
| The Constitution guarantees freedom of movement | Yes |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Driving is a privilege, not a right
In order to obtain the privilege of driving, individuals must apply for a license and abide by the rules of the road. The states have reserved the right to require a license for operating a motor vehicle. While people may ride as passengers anywhere they want as a constitutional right, driving requires a license.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to declare that driving is a right, not merely a privilege, in cases such as Beylund v. Levi, which are currently pending before the Court. These cases involve the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to refuse a warrantless test of one's breath or blood to determine blood alcohol content. However, the Court has not yet ruled on this issue, and driving remains a privilege, not a right.
Some people may argue that driving should be considered a fundamental right, as it is essential for many individuals to participate in society and access opportunities. However, the current legal consensus is that driving is a privilege that can be revoked if individuals do not meet the requirements or abide by the rules.
Non-Citizen Rights: Constitutional Protections and Legal Limits
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to declare driving a right
The Constitution guarantees freedom of movement, but this does not extend to operating a motor vehicle, which requires a license. People who insist that driving is a right point to the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of movement. However, the states have reserved the right to require a license for driving, and courts in states like California have ruled that driving is not a constitutional right.
The issue of whether driving is a fundamental right is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Beylund v. Levi. These cases involve the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to refuse a warrantless test of one's breath or blood to determine blood alcohol content. However, these cases also present the issue of whether driving is a fundamental right that requires a high degree of protection from government encroachment.
The Supreme Court's decision in these cases could have significant implications for the right to drive and the extent to which it is protected by the Constitution.
American Citizens: Constitution Protection Abroad?
You may want to see also
Driving is not protected by the Constitution
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to declare that driving is a fundamental right, which would require a high degree of protection from government encroachment. However, until that happens, driving is not subject to the full protections of the Constitution. This means that laws limiting driving privileges do not have to pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
Constitutional Rights: Newborn Babies and the Law
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The right to freedom of movement
Driving is not a right but a privilege. In order to obtain the privilege, you must apply for a license and abide by the rules of the road. People who insist that driving is a right point out that the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. While this is true, it does not extend to operating a motor vehicle, which still requires a license.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to declare that driving is a right and not merely a privilege. This is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court in Beylund v. Levi. The immediate issue presented in these cases involves the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to refuse a warrantless test of one’s breath or blood aimed at determining blood alcohol content. However, these cases also present another issue: whether or not driving is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognised by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.
Migrants' Rights: Are They Protected by the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
The constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to refuse a warrantless test of one’s breath or blood
Driving is not a right, but a privilege, and is therefore not subject to the full protections of the Constitution. People who insist that driving is a right point out that the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. However, to obtain the privilege of driving, you must apply for a license and abide by the rules of the road.
The United States Supreme Court has questioned some states’ laws that make it a crime to refuse a breath or blood test without a warrant, and whether or not it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures”, particularly, in this case, the right to be free from a bodily search without the police first obtaining a search warrant.
In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held that laws that make it a crime to refuse a blood test after a DUI arrest are unconstitutional. The Court did say, though, that it's fine for a law to make it a crime to refuse a post-arrest breath test. The Supreme Court also found that an officer has to get a warrant in order to require a driver who doesn't consent to a blood test to provide a blood sample. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Court found that states cannot make it a crime to refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test. States can, however, make it a crime to refuse to submit to a breath test.
Three years after the Birchfield case, in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, the Court established that law enforcement is almost always allowed to gather a blood sample for testing without a warrant if the driver is unconscious and the police haven't been able to administer a standard evidentiary breath test. However, the Mitchell case did say that this kind of warrantless blood draw could be unconstitutional if blood wouldn't have been drawn in the normal course of medical care and the police were not too busy to get a warrant.
The NFL, the Constitution, and Player Rights
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, driving is not a right but a privilege.
A right is protected by the Constitution, whereas a privilege is not.
Yes, you need a license to drive.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to declare driving a right and not merely a privilege.
Driving is not currently considered a right, but there are pending cases before the United States Supreme Court that could change this.
