driving on a michigan licence in Illinois

if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep
my licence, so can i get it back

Mike T. wrote:

> I've never heard of a traffic stop where a license was confiscated, unless
> the license was previously suspended or revoked.

I believe IL is one of those states that keeps your license until you
pay the fine or go to trial.

In article .com>, tony wrote:
> if i get stopped fro speeding o anyother problem, are they gonna keep
> my licence, so can i get it back

You get it back when you pay.

BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping
MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they
observe your car parked on the street everyday...

> BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping
> MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they
> observe your car parked on the street everyday...

Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though?
Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it.

When you mentioned "city sticker", I did some research. I found the
official web site at chicityclerk.com, and I'm still confused. What is the
purpose of the "city sticker", other than to royally **** Chicago residents
on an annual basis? It's almost a hundred bucks a year if purchased on
time, more expensive if purchased "late", and proof is required FROM THE
PURCHASER to prove that it's not a late purchase. OK, that much I'm clear
on. But, why was the sticker law passed in the first place? It has nothing
to do with parking, so what was the intent behind the law? -Dave

> In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any
> vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of
> scofflaws that way...

They couldn't catch scofflaws 'that way', unless they stomped all over the
4th amendment first. Our company has people working world-wide, with
hundreds (thousands?) of company vehicles registered in every state in the
U.S. alone. MOST of those vehicles are not required to have "commercial"
plates, and they have no markings of any kind that would indicate that they
are commercial vehicles. (such as a company logo, phone number,
advertising, etc.) Note that these vehicles are driven home to
privately-owned residential-zoned residences every night (when they are in
their home state, that is), and the legal vehicle registration has the
PRIVATE residential address on it, with no mention of the company at all.
If I didn't tell you it was a company vehicle, you would assume it was owned
by one of our employees, by reviewing the registration. We do own property
in California, and many of our vehicles parked at the California properties
(at any one time) are LEGALLY registered in any of a dozen (or more) states.
Note that most of these vehicles might only be in California for a week or
two at a time, or sometimes up to a month or more, but are OUTSIDE of
California most of the year. Assuming for a second that someone living and
working in CA had a car registered in another state, that car could be
parked on one of our CA properties, and it would look NO DIFFERENT from a
dozen or so other vehicles that are LEGALLY registered out of state, and
parked nearby.

Ignoring for a second that the police would need the permission of the
property owner to even ENTER the property, there is no fricking WAY that the
CA cops could tell if that Nebraska registered vehicle (for example) they
see parked on the CA property lot was legally registered or not, other than
possibly running a check through Nebraska to see if the plate was still
valid. But that wouldn't give the CA cops any useful information, as far as
the state of CA is concerned. It would just tell the CA cops if the car was
still legally registered IN NEBRASKA or not. Assuming for a second that a
CA cop was ultra-observant and noticed that same Nebraska car parked on our
CA lot every weekday for a few weeks straight, that STILL would not be
evidence of any wrongdoing. We have open borders between states in this
country. You don't need a passport or visa to travel from Nebraska to CA
and back.

To determine if the Nebraska car in CA was legal or not would require
information on the -driver- which would be impossible to obtain without
violating the 4th Amendment. -Dave

>
> We also have a toll-free number that people can call to report vehicle
> licensing scofflaws: http://www.chp.ca.gov/prog/cheaters.cgi
>
> CA residents: next time a MFFY with out-of-state plates pulls some
> asinine maneuver on the road, go ahead and do your civic duty: report
> him to the CHP as a possible scofflaw.

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:
>> BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping
>> MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they
>> observe your car parked on the street everyday...
>
> Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though?
> Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it.

You don't know the chicago revenue machine. People have been so ticketed
and complained online in places like chicago CL.

> When you mentioned "city sticker", I did some research. I found the
> official web site at chicityclerk.com, and I'm still confused. What is the
> purpose of the "city sticker", other than to royally **** Chicago residents
> on an annual basis?

It's a tax. So yes, that is the purpose.


> It's almost a hundred bucks a year if purchased on
> time, more expensive if purchased "late", and proof is required FROM THE
> PURCHASER to prove that it's not a late purchase. OK, that much I'm clear
> on. But, why was the sticker law passed in the first place? It has nothing
> to do with parking, so what was the intent behind the law? -Dave

MONEY.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:12:41 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>In IL, they take your driver's license in lieu of bond for traffic
>offenses. After you show up in court, you get your license back - with
>little staple holes in it. Don't ask me how I know that.

Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you
don't have holes in them.

*************************
Dave

In article >, DTJ wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:12:41 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:
>
>>In IL, they take your driver's license in lieu of bond for traffic
>>offenses. After you show up in court, you get your license back - with
>>little staple holes in it. Don't ask me how I know that.
>
> Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you
> don't have holes in them.

That was because the thickness of the new licenses. From when the TW was
smashed, the asshole cop was sure to put staple holes in my bond card.

I still remember the first time I was ever pulled over. Cop runs his
fingers around the edges of my license and says something like 'first
ticket?'. When I got my license back I was sure to iron out the staple
holes so it was like they were never there.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any
>vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of
>scofflaws that way...

One of these days someone's going to challenge that nonsense.
California requires you to have your car registered in their state if
you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work
in California, and don't fall under one of the commuter exceptions,
it's probably impossible to satisfy the laws of both states.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have
>an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required
>to be registered in CA.

So the accusation is prima facia evidence of guilt and from then on
it's your job to prove you're innocent? More and more reasons to stay
the **** away from California.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.