 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Busby v. State2/1/2002
t of this state. For this reason, it appears that the State of Alaska was authorized (under Article 24, Section 5 of the Convention) to withdraw Busby's right to use his international driving permit within this state.
Busby acknowledges this provision of the Convention, but he nevertheless argues that his international driving permit remained valid. First, Busby claims that Article 24, Section 5 does not authorize a signatory country to withdraw a person's right to use an international driving permit unless the person commits a new driving offense - i.e., commits an offense after the issuance of the international driving permit. In the alternative, Busby claims that even if a person's right to use an international driving permit can be withdrawn based on a pre-existing traffic offense, his permit remained in force because neither the United States nor the State of Alaska ever instituted official action to withdraw his right to use the permit -i.e., never initiated a judicial or administrative proceeding to revoke and seize Busby's international driving permit (prior to his arrest for driving with a revoked license). Busby argues that because the government took no affirmative action against his international driving permit, the permit remained valid and gave him the right to drive in the State of Alaska despite his earlier license revocation.
Busby's argument that a signatory country may not withdraw a person's right to use its roads based on a license suspension or revocation that pre-dates the issuance of the person's international driving permit
As explained above, the first sentence of Article 24, Section 5 authorizes a signatory country to withdraw a person's right to drive within its territory if that person "has committed a driving offence of such a nature as would entail the forfeiture of [the person's] driving permit under the legislation and regulations of that [country]". Busby asserts that this provision does not allow the State of Alaska to prospectively prohibit him from using his international driving permit in this state. That is, Busby argues that even though his Alaska driver's license had already been (and still was) revoked at the time he obtained his international driving permit in Nicaragua, that permit nevertheless authorized him to drive on the roads of Alaska.
It is hard to decipher Busby's precise argument. He may be contending that the authority granted by Article 24, Section 5 applies solely to driving offenses committed after the person has been issued an international driving permit - that once he obtained an international driving permit, the Convention on Road Traffic guaranteed him the right to use his international driving permit within the boundaries of Alaska until such time as he committed a new driving offense (and the State of Alaska or the federal government initiated some new judicial or administrative proceeding to withdraw his right to drive). We address this argument in this section of our opinion.
Alternatively, Busby may be arguing that even though his prior license revocation was a sufficient reason for the State of Alaska to withdraw his right to use his international driving permit, the State never initiated a judicial or administrative proceeding for that purpose. Under this suggested interpretation of Article 24, Section 5, a signatory country can not prohibit a driver whose license has been revoked from leaving that country, obtaining an international driving permit from the government of another country, and then returning as a licensed driver - at least until the revoking country realizes what has happened and takes official action against the newly-issued international driving permit. We address this arg
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|