SandBlasted Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I put a question to an on-line attorney web site about registering the Rhino in AZ and operating it here in NV. My question is, has anyone been actually cited for this? From what I understand, people have told me the CHP has said "have a nice day" and let people go in CA. with UTV's registered in AZ. Here is the response I received from the online attorney. Sent to Legal Experts June 14 1:59 p.m. ________________________________________ I own a Yamaha Rhino that I wish to register in AZ., with legal ties to AZ, but I live in Nevada. AZ registers these as motorcycles. My question is: If I meet the Nevada State law as far as safety equipment even though Nevada law defines a motorcycle as having no more than 3 wheels, can it be operated in the state of Nevada? Optional Information: Boulder City, Nevada vegasfireman (Online) -- 1 Accepts/1 Questions Status: We're Waiting For You Value: $30 1 Answer Accepted Answer June 14 2:14 p.m. (15 minutes and 51 seconds later) ACCEPTED ________________________________________ If the vehicle is legally registered and allowed to be operated on the streets of AZ, then Nevada is bound to recognize the registration under the Comity Clause. It is the same as driving at 16 on a license from a state that issues licenses at that age in a state that doesn't issue licenses until 17. As long as you have a valid street license plate on the vehicle, the other states are supposed to honor that registration. I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT button so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated! __________________ ________________ THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. PLEASE CONSULT A LAWYER IN YOUR STATE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. PaulMJD (Online) -- Attorney -- 99% Positive Feedback on 265 Legal Accepts 4 Years Employment/Labor Law, General Litigation and over 20 Years Law Enforcement Your Reply Sent June 14 2:23 p.m. (9 minutes and 1 second later) ________________________________________ Do you have any reference to the Comity Clause I can use? I'm going to get a ticket here as the police hae already told me they would. vegasfireman (Online) -- 1 Accepts/1 Questions Answer June 14 2:32 p.m. (8 minutes and 55 seconds later) What should I do? ________________________________________ The U.S. Supreme Court says so: JOHN T. HENDRICK, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 77. Argued November 11 and 12, 1914. Decided January 5, 1915. [235 U.S. 610, 611] Messrs. Osborne I. Yellott, Jackson H. Balston, Clement L. Bouv e, and William E. Richardson for plaintiff in error. [235 U.S. 610, 613] Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney General of Maryland, and Mr. Enos S. Stockbridge for defendant in error. [235 U.S. 610, 618] Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff in error was tried before a justice of the peace, Prince George's county, Maryland, upon a charge of violating the motor vehicle law. A written motion to quash the warrant because of conflict between the statute and the Constitution of the United States was denied; he was found quilty and fined. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court,-the highest in the state having jurisdiction,-where the cause stood for trial de novo upon the original papers. It was there submitted for determination by the court upon an agreed statement of facts grievously verbose, but in substance as follows: The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a justice of the peace for Prince George's county by the state against John T. Hendrick for violating 133 of the motor vehicle law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant [235 U.S. 610, 619] in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's county, and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by 133 of the motor vehicle law. He was brought before a justice of the peace and fined $15 after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued,-a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by 133. Upon the foregoing the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal. The Maryland legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (chap. 207, Laws 1910, p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles. The following summary sufficiently indicates its provisions: The governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles, with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated upon the highways the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year ( 133). Registration fees are fixed according to horsepower-$6 when 20 or less; $12 when from 20 to 40; and $18 when in excess of 40 ( 136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of $2 an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause [235 U.S. 610, 620] ( 137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, nonresident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the state in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc ., may, under specified conditions, obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license ( 140a); but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted ( 132). Other sections relate to speed, rules of the road, accidents, signals, penalties, arrests, trials, fines, etc. All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself. Section 140a is copied in the margin. 1 [235 U.S. 610, 621] Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because-it discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia; attempts to regulate interstate commerce; violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the state; exacts a tax for revenue- not mere compensation for the use of facilities-according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws. If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most they are entitled to equality of treatment, and in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the state we will not assume that, upon a proper showing, this will be denied, The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker,- prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other states under the plain terms of 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute, and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 161 , 51 S. L. ed. 415, 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415, 423 , 56 S. L. ed. 253, 256, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137; Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 295 , 296 S., 56 L. ed. 439, 443, 444 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286; Missouri, [235 U.S. 610, 622] K. & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 648 , 58 S. L. ed. 1135, 1137, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678, and cases cited. The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the above described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to [235 U.S. 610, 623] inquiry in so far as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30 , 31 S., 28 L. ed. 923-925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480 , 31 S. L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 136 , 38 S. L. ed. 385, 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631 , 41 S. L. ed. 853, 854, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392 , 42 S. L. ed. 780, 791, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 298 , 43 S. L. ed. 702, 707, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 568 , 55 S. L. ed. 328, 338, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280, 291 , 58 S. L. ed. 1312, 1317, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829. In Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480 , 31 S. L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train, without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness, and obtaining a license, for which a fee was charged. The language of the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said: 'But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the state or in commerce among the states.' The prescribed regulations upon their face do not appear to be either unnecessary or unreasonable. In view of the many decisions of this court there can be [235 U.S. 610, 624] no serious doubt that where a state at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the state itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Parkersburg & O. River Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 699 , 27 S. L. ed. 584, 587, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 732; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 548 , 549 S., 30 L. ed. 487, 490, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 313; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 329 , 330 S., 37 L. ed. 463, 469, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U.S. 352, 405 , 57 S. L. ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, and authorities cited. The action of the state must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the state, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed; and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable. There is no solid foundation for the claim that the statute directly interferes with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the state, and is consequently bad according to the doctrine announced in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745. In that case a direct tax was laid upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the state; while here the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways, and to charge for the use of valuable facilities. As the capacity of the machine owned by plaintiff in error does not appear, he cannot complain of discrimination because fees are imposed according to engine power. Distinctions amongst motor machines and between them and other vehicles may be proper,-essential, indeed,-and those now challenged are not obviously arbitrary or oppressive. The statute is not a mere revenue measure, [235 U.S. 610, 625] and a discussion of the classifications permissible under such an act would not be pertinent. There is no error in the judgment complained of, and it is accordingly affirmed. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] '140a. Any owner or operator not a resident of this state, who shall have complied with the laws of the state in which he resides, requiring the registration of motor vehicles or licensing of operators thereof and the display of identification or registration numbers on such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such state, in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter of said state, to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in this subtitle provided, while used or operated upon the public highways of this state, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year, without complying with the provisions of 133 and 137 of this subtitle, if he obtains from the commissioner of motor vehicles and displays on the rear of such vehicle a tag or marker which the said commissioner of motor vehicles shall issue in such form and contain such distinguishing marks as he may deem best; provided that if any nonresident be convicted of violating any provisions of 140b, 140c, 140d, 140e, and 1401 of this subtitle, he shall thereafter be subject to and required to comply with all the provisions of said 133 and 137 relating to the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of operators thereof; and the governor of this state is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with proper officers and legislative bodies of other states of the Union, and enter into reciprocal agreements under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this state will be recognized by such other states, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other states the privilege of using the roads of this state as in this section provided in return for similar privileges granted residents of this state by such other states.' __________________ ________________ THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. PLEASE CONSULT A LAWYER IN YOUR STATE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. PaulMJD (Online) -- Attorney -- 99% Positive Feedback on 265 Legal Accepts 4 Years Employment/Labor Law, General Litigation and over 20 Years Law Enforcement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMitty Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Once again Craig, good luck! A couple of points you may want to consider though... 1). Assuming you register the Rhino in AZ and live in NV (if I read your post right), you will only be able to do this for 60 days....or until ur caught (NRS 482.385-3).... 2). If you manage to somehow keep your AZ driver's license, you have only 30 days to change that (483.245). 3). Certain laws CAN be enforced via citation in NV for offenses that would be perfectly legal in another state; (example >>helmets are not required for motorcycles in UT but you ride without one here, I double dog dare you to show a cop your UT driver's license or registration and say "Its legal back home".....as the Supreme Court brief you cited stated: "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others." 4). Most importantly......although states cannot override the US Constitution, they can operate within each clause to LIMIT the extent which the right applies to their residents (i.e through elected officials). Example: The second amendment affords all Americans the right to keep and bear arms.......the state of California has limited that amendment to almost non-existence (i.e. no .50 cal weapons / certain rifles illegal / round caps on mags / ect...) Keep fighting the good fight Craig!!!! :dance: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandBlasted Posted June 15, 2008 Author Share Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) Once again Craig, good luck! A couple of points you may want to consider though... 1). Assuming you register the Rhino in AZ and live in NV (if I read your post right), you will only be able to do this for 60 days....or until ur caught (NRS 482.385-3).... 2). If you manage to somehow keep your AZ driver's license, you have only 30 days to change that (483.245). 3). Certain laws CAN be enforced via citation in NV for offenses that would be perfectly legal in another state; (example >>helmets are not required for motorcycles in UT but you ride without one here, I double dog dare you to show a cop your UT driver's license or registration and say "Its legal back home".....as the Supreme Court brief you cited stated: "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others." 4). Most importantly......although states cannot override the US Constitution, they can operate within each clause to LIMIT the extent which the right applies to their residents (i.e through elected officials). Example: The second amendment affords all Americans the right to keep and bear arms.......the state of California has limited that amendment to almost non-existence (i.e. no .50 cal weapons / certain rifles illegal / round caps on mags / ect...) Keep fighting the good fight Craig!!!! :dance: I agree with all you said. The motorcycle has acceptable safety equipment which is recognized nationwide and in all states. If I meet all the safety equipment of Nevada then I feel that argument is moot. Then again I've never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer either. If you run the VIN of my Rhino at the DMV, the DMV categorizes it as a motorcycle. You are allowed to register a dirt bike as a street bike in Nevada after meeting the street safety requirements. I don't think anyone can argue that my "Motorcycle" is less safe than the next motorcycle with my roll over protection and seat belts. The only thing in Nevada Law that says my Rhino is not a motorcycle is that pesky law that says no more than 3 wheels. But that contradicts what the DMV says my Rhino is, and then there is the voyager kit. The voyager kit which makes motorcycles like a trike, puts 4 wheels on the ground and no one has enforced that 3 wheel law against them. The Manufacture says it has not heard of anyone getting a ticket for it in any state. Now I know the police can give a ham sandwich a ticket for having mayo on it, but making it stick is another situation. Our police chief in BC is on video record saying there is not much it can do as this was brought up in a town meeting as far as someone riding one here from AZ. I live in Nevada with a Nevada drivers license, is there any law that says I can't borrow a vehicle from someone out of state? How I plan to do it is to register it in AZ in my name and a family member's name who resides in AZ. I plan on being the lien holder. I know there are ways to live in Nevada and have an out of state registration, even an out of state license. A few of my friends have been doing it for years and I mean more than 10. The whole family and most of their friends have their vehicles registered out of state. Cars Trucks Motorhomes and more. All out of state paying a 15.00 registration fee. Two of them must carry a Nevada drivers license because of their jobs. (I think the wives carry the out of state license.) The BCPD targeted them for a time because it is a small town and they know them and after several attempts to make something stick and under threat of a lawsuit the PD backed off. This is a last ditch effort if nothing else works. I value your opinion, where am I going wrong? Edited June 15, 2008 by SandBlasted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMitty Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 (edited) ... Edited February 17, 2017 by sMitty ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandBlasted Posted June 15, 2008 Author Share Posted June 15, 2008 I have several friends that do the ole out of state registration too...one had been caught so hence the reason for my concern...... I dont think you are going wrong anywhere amigo....I'm just trying to find the reasoning as to why you are running into roadblocks.... I personally wouldn't push the envelope with the out of state registration issue due to the NRS I quoted you.... I couldn't find ANY other laws that would preclude the use of the Rhino on the street either (minus of course all of the required safety equipment being installed (i.e. amber lights, turn signals, horn, wind shield, wipers, ect...) I'm all for it....but like you said, the charge may not stick but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go to court 10 times a month to get a ticket dismissed to make a point! And lets face it....if were doing this down Sahara :rhino: , were not exactly flying under the radar! You have my vote sir. Thanks... Like I said this is a last ditch effort. The DMV will not register the Rhino. We have tried several ways and now since there is the programmable CDI, we can limit the speed to 25MPH. We have meet the requirements of Federal Rule 500:571 and NRS 484 completly and the DMV still refuses to register it, using laws from other ares to deny registration. Namely the off road vehicle law and the we don't register ATV's. I have been told no matter what you do we will not register it, then if I can't get anything done at the legislative level then this is Plan B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusthol Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 i saw in a post for a rhino for sale on here that is registered in calif. wonder how he got that done? he hasnt responded to any questions. if cali can do it we just have to show dmv that the surrounding states have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandBlasted Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 i saw in a post for a rhino for sale on here that is registered in calif. wonder how he got that done? he hasnt responded to any questions. if cali can do it we just have to show dmv that the surrounding states have done. Yes I saw that. The one I saw was a Ranger. The DMV knows what the other states are doing, a lot of people ave told them as well as I, however they don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eli Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 The DMV knows what the other states are doing, a lot of people ave told them as well as I, however they don't care. Ya think... Is this the same DMV that would not let me put a fuel injected 350 crate engine in my FJ40 even though it would burn cleaner because it never came with a V8 and pays a guy to check their database for FJ40's with V8's? Is this the same DMV that made me get insurance on my FJ40 when I flat-towed it to the wrench to put the engine in? In other words a motor vehicle without a motor. Yes tow trucks are different I should have paid one of them?????? Is this the same DMV that is charging me $500 because I renewed the insurance policy 10 days late on two motorcycles that never left the garage? Insurance is less than $100 bucks for both and so are the plates. Is this the same DMV that hasn't figured out that getting cited for $250 bucks once a year is cheaper than buying insurance for those piles of crap running around without insurance. Show me a cheap piece of land in AZ and I'll plate all nine motor vehicles I own there. But risk my UTV to drive it on the street? You don't think it will be impounded while you fight? How much you gonna spend on the lawer? Eli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.