The fifth amendment means (among other things) that you don't have to incriminate yourself. It won't get you out of a traffic ticket if the officer has good independent evidence, such as a reading from a well-calibrated radar gun (although it is not infrequently possible to plea down to a non-moving violation if you put up much of a fight, notwithstanding strong evidence; this depends of course on the jurisdiction). It also pays, of course, to know the precise law -- in many states, for example, speeding only creates a rebuttable presumption of unsafe driving, and you may provide evidence that there were extenuating circumstances.

What made you think there was a fifth amendment get-out-of-jail-free card, if you don't mind my asking?

I suspect it has something to do with burden of proof. You dont need to lie under oath by stating you werent speeding or running a stop sign nd then have the officer provide evidence you were (Such as video footage).
You could plead the fifth and the police would need to provide the same evidence they would have provided regardless of what you say.

http://bit.ly/1u8s4TY

Isn't there a clause prohibiting regulation of non-profit making acticities except when they cross state boundaries? (or something similar) As such it has been used to claim that you can't regulate (like with licenses) driving, for private reasons, so excepting taxis and other commercial vechiles.

And without a license, states have a lot of difficulty applying speeding tickets.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqFgUZcVDfo
Though i suspect that guy is a conspiracy theorist... And i would not take this as legal advice.

~And see: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

I don't want to necessarily piss off the cops though. I want them to say "dammit, a civilian that knows he has rights," not "dammit, a desperate, deranged imbecile."

@semck ... that makes sense. I just heard from a friend in pre-law at Northwestern about it. Maybe I can clarify for him because I didn't think it was that easy.

@bo, well, there does seem to be precedent in US courts for the claim that the government has no right to require driving licenses... but i'm not legal expert, or constitutional scholar... It just seems interesting to me and it is almost directly related to the US constitution question.

I would really like you to ask police who stop you about it (after you show them your license) to find out what the reality on the ground is.

The government doesn't have a right to require driving licenses, but the government also has no responsibility to build the roads, so as long as they keep building and maintaining the roads even though they don't have to (well, they wouldn't get elected if they didn't - yay republicanism?), I'm not going to complain about the fact that they want to control who uses them.

I'm also not going to talk to cops unless I absolutely have to. Ew.

@ bo_sox48

Some states have a "Common Speed" clause, which states that you can't be penalized for speeding *if* going below the speed limit would have disrupted traffic. I.E., if you're on a really busy road with a speed limit of 45 but everyone is going 55, then the cops can't penalize you for staying with traffic.

Do you know which states?

First show up for the trial and hope the arresting officer doesn't since that will end the trial. Next is questioning the evidence against you. If the method used to measure your speed hasn't been properly calibrated or done recently you can then challenge the accuracy of how fast you were going.

Some states allow you to go faster than posted if it was reasonable and prudent for driving conditions. For instance if everyone else was going faster so you were keeping up with traffic and you were the only one cited. Or there was no other traffic and the area was clear enough that you could have stopped in time if some one entered from a cross street.

@ bo_sox48

Nope. I'm not going to research your case for you. But common speed law might be a good lead to investigate.

Lol, there is no case. It's just a question. I haven't driven a car in almost six months. I looked it up and didn't see anything on it.

have you access to a legal database like lexis nexis? in principle, the fifth amendment would only protect from having to admit that you drunk or took drugs or the like if asked in court or questioning. you could always try to turn the burden of proof. depending on your state's or county's legislation it might be possible that the state (aka police) has to prove that your overspeeding was imprudent.

No, I don't. I can find some crazy left-wing guy on the internet that does and posts everything relevant on his blog, though.

orathaic,

The state has every right to require drivers' licenses -- on state roads. In other contexts, well, that can vary.

@Smeck, hmm, that is an arguement. Though i'm not sure the framers of the constitution would have seen it likewise.

I don't think the framers saw the concept of driving at all...

As this Forum's resident Constitutionalist, I feel obligated to comment:

Under the Tenth Amendment, the States have the power to build roads and regulate them (i.e. requiring a driver's license to utilize the aforementioned roads). Additionally, the federal government has the power to build roads as long as they are used by the Post Office (Post Office/Post Roads Clause).

The States can constitutionally build and regulate roads (Tenth Amendment), and the federal government can constitutionally build interstate highways, on condition that the Post Office uses them (Postal Clause)

"I haven't seen a white USPS vehicle, officer, so no, you are not legally authorized to give me this ticket."

Well, bo, I hope you don't get pulled over by the FBI or any other federal agency...

Does the FBI have so little to do that they conduct traffic stops now?

No, but seeing as only federal roads must have post offices... I assumed that is where you were going? How many other federal police forces are there?

FL has absolute speed limits. You can't justify speeding based on everyone else is doing it or conditions allowed it. 70 means 70.

@orathaic,

Yes, the framers would have seen it likewise. Plenary powers were reserved to the states.

@Gunfighter,

Hey now, you're not the only Constitutionalist on the forum. ;-)