Defendant Disputes Constitutionality of Traffic Laws

What began as a straight-forward criminal arraignment in Jefferson County Court for traffic violations quickly turned into a debate on the constitutionality of traffic laws.Dale W. Roades, age 45, of Brenham, Texas, appeared in front of Judge Linda Bauer on Wednesday, August 2, 2023. He is charged with driving without proof of insurance, a class 2 misdemeanor.Rhoades was originally scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, July 12, 2023, but failed to appear. Judge Bauer issued a warrant for the defendant's arrest at that time. The warrant was recalled later that same day and a new arraignment date set.The charge was read in court and when Judge Bauer asked if the defendant misunderstood the charge and possible penalty, Rhoades responded, “Not really, Ma'am, I sure don't.”The judge asked, “What don't you understand?”Rhoades said, “Well, it was my understanding that we the people have a right to travel unmolested on the highways, waterways and byways.”The judge explained, “The law is that if you're driving on a highway in the state of Nebraska, and you own a vehicle, it has to have proof of liability insurance.”Rhoades responded, “In the Chicago Coach Company versus City of Chicago riled, the Supreme Court ruling you don't have to have driver's license, registration or, of course, insurance. Is that incorrect?”Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago was a decision made by the Supreme Court of Illinois in 1929.“That is incorrect,” said the judge.When the defendant asked for proof that was true, Bauer responded, “Well, I don't have to prove anything today. It's your right to plead Not Guilty and then we'd set it for trial and then the state has to prove your guilt or innocence at trial.”The judge then asked how the defendant wanted to plead; guilty, not guilty or no contest. Rhoades asked, “What am I pleading guilty to?”When the judge again explained the charge, Rhoades said, “Well, I thought that traveling is a constitutional, protected activity.”“You must be mistaken about that part of it, today. All I'm asking today is if you understand the charge,” said the judge.Rhoades said, “I don't understand how I can be subject to going to jail for traveling. It is a constitutional, protected activity.”The judge said, “It's not a constitutional, protected activity. It's a privilege to drive a motor vehicle in the State of Nebraska, not a right.”Rhoades continued to insist that traveling was protected by the Constitution. Judge Bauer told him, “You can travel on your feet, but if you're going to get in a car, there's certain things you have to do.”Rhoades still would not enter a plea and continued to argue, so the judge told him, “Well, Mr. Rhoades, you have a choice today. You can either proceed with this or we can just keep coming back here every week until you're ready to enter a plea and proceed with the case.”“It kind of seems like intimidation,” said Rhoades. “I don't want to plead guilty to something I'm not guilty of.”“You don't have to. Do you want to plead not guilty and have a trial?” the judge asked.”Rhoades asked about getting an attorney. In Nebraska, defendants are only entitled to court-appointed counsel if there is the possibility of incarceration. Judge Bauer asked County Attorney Joseph Casson if the state would be seeking jail time.“It would now,” Casson responded. “Absolutely.”Rhoades said, “He's threatening me with jail right now because I exercised my constitutional right to travel, so he's trying to intimidate me in court, in front of you, your Honor.”When asked by the judge if he wished to be considered for court-appointed counsel, Rhoades said, “I'm trying to figure out why we're getting all our rights taken away from us.”“I ask what would my fine be if I give into my government today,” asked Rhoades.The judge told him the fine was $100 plus $50 for court costs.Rhoades decided to plead guilty, “I'll let you violate my rights.”The County Attorney gave the factual basis for the charge, which resulted from a traffic stop. Casson noted, “The officer asked Mr. Rhoades to provide proof of financial responsibility and he was unable to do so. He was cited for having no insurance.”Rhoades asked, “Why do I have to prove that I have financial responsibility? Shouldn't my bills be my own concern and not my government's?”It's a public policy issue. The legislature set forth that…”Rhoades interrupted, “Is that constitutional or unconstitutional?”“Well, it's passed constitutional muster so far,” said the judge.“A lot of things, like taking our guns away, have passed constitutional muster as well,”said Rhoades.Judge Bauer said, “I don't decide constitutionality.”“But when we the people do speak up, we get intimidated,” said Rhoades. “Like your County Attorney tried to intimidate me.”“I'm not intimidating you,” said Casson. “It's the law.”“But is it constitutional?” asked Rhoades.Casson said, “It's the law.”“But is it constitutional?” asked Rhoades.Casson said, “It's the law.”Rhoades was then fined $100 plus $50 court costs. Judge Bauer asked how much time he needed to pay the fine.Rhoades said, “Thirty years.”The judge gave him until September 6 to pay his fine and costs.

Fairbury Man Wants To Take Speeding Ticket to Trial

Fairbury Man Pleads Guilty to Strangulation

Related Articles

Suspect Arrested in Nebraska for Colorado Cold Case

Wymore Man Pleads Guilty to Assault

Fairbury Man Accused of Disturbing the Peace on New Year’s Day Reaches Plea Deal

Blue Springs Man Gets Prison Time for Drugs, Theft