Driving in California - A warning to all you non-resident newlyweds.

[TinTin and Samby 11]

This whole thing is completely avoidable. You are a permanent resident of canada visting Californina. As such you are eligibleto drive in CA using your international license. Done.

This is the truth and it completely eliminates the need for the entire (fruitless) debate with the local cop.

-Samby

[bobzurunkel 1]

I would NOT make the argument that "Your honor, I didn't get a license because the USCIS hadn't approved my paperwork so my immigration status wouldn't allow me to get a license". Or at least I'd only make it as a last resort. Whether or not you're eligible for a license isn't the judge's problem. The judge only has to decide whether or not the law required you to obtain a license in order to drive in CA. If you were required to get a license and didn't get one, regardless of the very good reason for not getting one, you were in violation of the law when you drove. Legally, it's the equivalent of someone saying, "I didn't get a license because I kept failing the road test".

I can't afford a lawyer right now, can't work, expensive process, etc. There's no question that it's about residency status and not eligibility. Here's what I'm thinking for my argument:

Section 516 CVC provides a definition of a resident as it applies to vehicle registration, the definition of residency contained in Section 12505(a)(1) CVC is an applicable definition for drivers license purposes. Section 12505(a)(1) CVC provides the following examples as prima facie evidence of residency:

A ) Address where registered to vote: I am a Canadian resident, I vote in Canada, not in the USA.

B ) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education. - I do not attend/pay tutition on any form of higher education at a public or private institution.

C ) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption. - I do not own a home in the USA nor do I pay any form of rent, dues, lease, etc.

D ) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. - I have been staying at my wife’s residence here in Burbank since January, 2009. I married her in Los Angeles County on March 24th, 2009. I’ve applied for and received a social security number (even though I’m not allowed to work in the USA). That's it... I have not "received any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to nonresidents."

It is essential to note that any intent towards residency, in ANY State, depends entirely upon a successful I-485 adjustment of status application. If the I-485 application is denied, I will need to return to my residence in Canada immediately and will have to begin the immigration process for my wife and step-daughter to join me there. It would be incredibly foolish of me to claim non-resident status in Canada and lose my privileges as a Canadian resident until approvalof the I-485 is final.

Marrying a US citizen who is a California resident and participating in any of the endeavors required to maintain legal presence within the country should not in themselves be considered substantiative "intent" to become a resident of the State of CA. My presence in CA should be considered “temporary and transient in nature” until I can be assured the DHS/USCIS will approve my I-485 application or at a minimum, until I am granted permission to work by the DHS and I become part of the California work force, paying taxes, etc. If my application does not succeed, there is no immediate remedy/appeal within the USA and I must return to Canada immediately. Because of this, I cannot consider my wife's residence in Burbank my "true, fixed, permanent" domicile.

That's the way I see it, what do you think?

[bobzurunkel 1]

This whole thing is completely avoidable. You are a permanent resident of canada visting Californina. As such you are eligibleto drive in CA using your international license. Done.

This is the truth and it completely eliminates the need for the entire (fruitless) debate with the local cop.

-Samby

No Samby, not according to the policeman that cited me, as well as the other cop I talked to from the Police department.

They don't care what my USCIS status is, In their eyes if I'm in California for more than 10 days at a fixed address it's my "state of domicile". They view California residency entirely separate from United States residency... Not sure how it is in other states.

The cops refuse to argue about it, they always think they are right... The onus is now on me to prove in front of a judge that I am NOT a resident of California according to the standards they have set out.

Yeah, I guess it could have been avoided all this had I flat out lied to the cop about how long I was in the state for and where I was staying.

A few people have told me I should have said that, but uhhh hello, I was in between the I-94 expiry and the AOS I-485 submission when I got dinged... If I had lied to the cop, and if he, for any reason, wanted to see my passport or run some sort of immigration check or to check on what my legal presence status was, I could probably have been deported for bullshitting him. I've come so far in this process to be with my woman, I'm not taking any chances by lying.

[lucyrich 20]

I would NOT make the argument that "Your honor, I didn't get a license because the USCIS hadn't approved my paperwork so my immigration status wouldn't allow me to get a license". Or at least I'd only make it as a last resort. Whether or not you're eligible for a license isn't the judge's problem. The judge only has to decide whether or not the law required you to obtain a license in order to drive in CA. If you were required to get a license and didn't get one, regardless of the very good reason for not getting one, you were in violation of the law when you drove. Legally, it's the equivalent of someone saying, "I didn't get a license because I kept failing the road test".

I can't afford a lawyer right now, can't work, expensive process, etc. There's no question that it's about residency status and not eligibility. Here's what I'm thinking for my argument:

Section 516 CVC provides a definition of a resident as it applies to vehicle registration, the definition of residency contained in Section 12505(a)(1) CVC is an applicable definition for drivers license purposes. Section 12505(a)(1) CVC provides the following examples as prima facie evidence of residency:

A ) Address where registered to vote: I am a Canadian resident, I vote in Canada, not in the USA.

B ) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education. - I do not attend/pay tutition on any form of higher education at a public or private institution.

C ) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption. - I do not own a home in the USA nor do I pay any form of rent, dues, lease, etc.

D ) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. - I have been staying at my wife’s residence here in Burbank since January, 2009. I married her in Los Angeles County on March 24th, 2009. I’ve applied for and received a social security number (even though I’m not allowed to work in the USA). That's it... I have not "received any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to nonresidents."

It is essential to note that any intent towards residency, in ANY State, depends entirely upon a successful I-485 adjustment of status application. If the I-485 application is denied, I will need to return to my residence in Canada immediately and will have to begin the immigration process for my wife and step-daughter to join me there. It would be incredibly foolish of me to claim non-resident status in Canada and lose my privileges as a Canadian resident until approvalof the I-485 is final.

Marrying a US citizen who is a California resident and participating in any of the endeavors required to maintain legal presence within the country should not in themselves be considered substantiative "intent" to become a resident of the State of CA. My presence in CA should be considered “temporary and transient in nature” until I can be assured the DHS/USCIS will approve my I-485 application or at a minimum, until I am granted permission to work by the DHS and I become part of the California work force, paying taxes, etc. If my application does not succeed, there is no immediate remedy/appeal within the USA and I must return to Canada immediately. Because of this, I cannot consider my wife's residence in Burbank my "true, fixed, permanent" domicile.

That's the way I see it, what do you think?

Looks like a good strategy, but I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know whether it'll fly.

I'd also try and include any evidence that you DO maintain a residence in Canada to which you can return. I.e. do you have a home there that you rent or own? Do you have a mailing address there? Have you been paying taxes there? Do you have insurance policies or other current documents listing your Canadian address? Dig up whatever you can. When the judge looks at the big picture you paint for him, you want him to see someone with many more important ties to Canada than to the US.

There are weasel words in CVC 12505: "prima facie" basically means "on the face of it, but rebuttable with counter evidence". "includes, but is not limited to" means there are other things that could be considered on the list. "Other acts, occurrences, or events" could be almost anything. If I were you, I'd try to look up as many court cases as you can where the meaning of those weasel words was interpreted. You won't find them all online, but if you can go to a law library with Lexis access, you may find a case similar to yours. If you're lucky, you'll find one that's very similar to yours where the plaintiff won.

Even if you don't find relevant cases, use those weasel words to your advantage, to point out as many areas as you can think of where your ties are stronger to Canada than they are to the US.

Good luck.

[Creel 0]

This whole thing is completely avoidable. You are a permanent resident of canada visting Californina. As such you are eligibleto drive in CA using your international license. Done.

This is the truth and it completely eliminates the need for the entire (fruitless) debate with the local cop.

-Samby

That is not correct TinTin and Samby.

"The State of California does not recognize an International Driving Permit (IDP) as a valid driver license. California does recognize a valid driver license that is issued by a foreign jurisdiction (country, state, territory) of which the license holder is a resident.

The IDP is only a translation of information contained on a person’s foreign driver license and is not required to operate a motor vehicle in California. Citations issued to a person in California who has an IDP, but does not have a California driver license will be placed on the Department of Motor Vehicle database."

The home country license is valid to drive in CA if you are visiting. The whole issue is whether you are now a permenant residence. Once you are a perm. resident you have 10 days to get a CA license. The cop on our case quoted just being in CA for 10 days, so I think the police are just ignorant of the actual law. If you can prove you are not a Perm. resident than you can drive, if not, you are breaking the law.

I actually printed out all the definitions and carried them in our glove box after my husband's ticket just incase he got stopped again he could show that he had researched the law and that he was not breaking it.

[Big Papa Zone 93]

I took the ticket, thanked him and told him to have a nice day (It was the first time I had lied to him as I secretly wished for him to die in a fire as soon as possible).

[Saddle Bronc 124]

You shoulda PM'ed me agamoto; I have actual experience in using Canadian licence in US way past state "deadlines", and getting off tickets on that.

Holy #######, do tell!!

OK, in 1994 (actually, I entered December 30, 1993) I worked in Atlanta partly on OPT (till April 30) and the rest on TN-1 (May 1 to year-end). I had leased a car in Atlanta (bad move financially, but that's not a factor here) which obviously had GA tags.

In latter half of August 1994, I got stopped for speeding merging from Peachtree Industrial Blvd to I-285 west; I told the cop that I had found out (which I had, in June) from GA-patrol that a foreign DL (in this case, AB--the ID wouldn't expire till past 1996) was OK for foreigner on temp visa (in this case TN-1). After a few minutes, the ticked-off cop came back and stated it was too much headache for him to write it up, adding "now get outta here!", with which I complied.

When I tried a few days later to write a cheque at a Kroger, the transaction was disallowed with a manager's lecture of "they won't call to Alberta on this issue, they'll just give you two tickets"--even after I explained to him the earlier happening (Publix had no problem, they have codes for various States/Provinces, so easy).

[Nikita2Charles 32]

I am in the Sillicon Valley, We have various folks from Singapore who comes down here for training, at time for over 1 month and in some cases as long as 3-4 months, all this time, they drive the rental car using their respective countries drivers license.

So it might come down to how the cop sees you, when presenting the case you can try to emphasize you are not a resident, you are still a visitor pending your approval, if you don't get approve you will go back to your country, as such you are not a resident yet.

Sorry about your problem, you are in trouble just by being honest.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Nikita2Charles

[TinTin and Samby 11]

This whole thing is completely avoidable. You are a permanent resident of canada visting Californina. As such you are eligibleto drive in CA using your international license. Done.

This is the truth and it completely eliminates the need for the entire (fruitless) debate with the local cop.

-Samby

That is not correct TinTin and Samby.

"The State of California does not recognize an International Driving Permit (IDP) as a valid driver license. California does recognize a valid driver license that is issued by a foreign jurisdiction (country, state, territory) of which the license holder is a resident.

The IDP is only a translation of information contained on a person’s foreign driver license and is not required to operate a motor vehicle in California. Citations issued to a person in California who has an IDP, but does not have a California driver license will be placed on the Department of Motor Vehicle database."

The home country license is valid to drive in CA if you are visiting. The whole issue is whether you are now a permenant residence. Once you are a perm. resident you have 10 days to get a CA license. The cop on our case quoted just being in CA for 10 days, so I think the police are just ignorant of the actual law. If you can prove you are not a Perm. resident than you can drive, if not, you are breaking the law.

I actually printed out all the definitions and carried them in our glove box after my husband's ticket just incase he got stopped again he could show that he had researched the law and that he was not breaking it.

Yes it is correct. You are overthinking the situation.

As I said, the OP **IS** a canadian resident visiting the US/California. They ARE using their canadian drivers license to drive in CA while visiting here. They are NOT yet a resident of the US, until they receive their Green Card.

Completly avoidable problem. The OP is trying too hard to "educate" the local police. Don't try to fight the system..use the system the way it works best. Nothing about this is incorect or fraudulant and it completely avoids the entire issue.

SCENARIO:

OP: Canadian Citizen who has not yet received their Green card driving along the road in CA with their Canadian Drivers License.

CA Cop: Pulls over the OP. Asks for Drivers license and car registration

OP: Gives the CA Cop their Candian Drivers License

CA Cop: asks OP what they are doing here in CA

OP: Answers, I am visiting. (This is completely true, you are not a permanent resident until your AOS is completed and you are issued a Green Card

CA Cop: Well, you are speeding (or whatever the violation is). Here is a ticket. Either pay it by the date on the ticket or submit Not Guilty and come to court to fight it.

OP: OK, thanks officer.

CA Cop: Drive carefully. Good Bye.

OP: Good Bye.

Done! No issue. No discussion of immigration required. No lying or fraud involved.

-Samby

[TinTin and Samby 11]

This whole thing is completely avoidable. You are a permanent resident of canada visting Californina. As such you are eligibleto drive in CA using your international license. Done.

This is the truth and it completely eliminates the need for the entire (fruitless) debate with the local cop.

-Samby

No Samby, not according to the policeman that cited me, as well as the other cop I talked to from the Police department.

They don't care what my USCIS status is, In their eyes if I'm in California for more than 10 days at a fixed address it's my "state of domicile". They view California residency entirely separate from United States residency... Not sure how it is in other states.

The cops refuse to argue about it, they always think they are right... The onus is now on me to prove in front of a judge that I am NOT a resident of California according to the standards they have set out.

Yeah, I guess it could have been avoided all this had I flat out lied to the cop about how long I was in the state for and where I was staying.

A few people have told me I should have said that, but uhhh hello, I was in between the I-94 expiry and the AOS I-485 submission when I got dinged... If I had lied to the cop, and if he, for any reason, wanted to see my passport or run some sort of immigration check or to check on what my legal presence status was, I could probably have been deported for bullshitting him. I've come so far in this process to be with my woman, I'm not taking any chances by lying.

Again, you are trying too hard. People are "visiting" CA for more than 10 days at a fixed address all the time. From Grandma visitng their grandchildren for 3 months to workers staying at a hotel for a month while on asignment...

See my other post for more details. But , again, the bottom line: dont try to "educate" so many people...that will only cause stress and inevitably ab outcome that you dont want. Use the system the way it was designed. Follow the rules, speak the truth, but dont buck the system or try to 'demonstrate' or educate finer points of interrelationships to people who have no interest to listen or understand - like the local CA cops you are dealing with.

Good luck,

Samby

[Chamy and Gatita 3]

I presented the officer with my Canadian license, valid until 2013. He then asked me where I was living and I gave him my address in Burbank.

Wrong answer. Should have given him your address in Canadaville, Canada.

That would be lying though.

Not if you're saying "I'm from Canada, and my address there is 1234 N Canada Drive, Canadaville, Canada."

I agree.

Heads up-

For anyone else living here in CA, just be aware that the first question every cop here asks upon being handed any non- CA driver's license, is WHERE DO YOU LIVE? It is a trick question, designed to get the driver to reveal a CA residence so they can ticket you for non-possesion of a CA DL. that being said, and knowing you are in a gray area with regard to AOS, form your own answer according to your own ethics. obviously you don't want to get caught in a lie, but neither do you want to be caught between two non-communicating and non-caring bureaucratic agencies which don't give one fat #$%& about you. One last thought: I work closely with a lot of cops here in CA, and they say the most important part of your interaction with any cop is your attitude.

[Chamy and Gatita 3]

One last thing--

That being said, I'm sorry to hear about your situation!!! It totally sucks!! I wish you the best of luck in its speedy resolution. forgive me if this sounds demeaning, it's not my intent, but while you are dealing with all this mess, don't forget to maybe take a look at the CA driver regulations booklet, available at any DMV (dont wait in line- its usually located in a self service rack in the waiting area) and brush up on the rules of the road here, so you don't get stopped again.

[Kar98 0]

SCENARIO:

OP: Canadian Citizen who has not yet received their Green card driving along the road in CA with their Canadian Drivers License.

CA Cop: Pulls over the OP. Asks for Drivers license and car registration

OP: Gives the CA Cop their Candian Drivers License

CA Cop: asks OP what they are doing here in CA

OP: Answers, I am visiting. (This is completely true, you are not a permanent resident until your AOS is completed and you are issued a Green Card

CA Cop: Well, you are speeding (or whatever the violation is). Here is a ticket. Either pay it by the date on the ticket or submit Not Guilty and come to court to fight it.

OP: OK, thanks officer.

CA Cop: Drive carefully. Good Bye.

OP: Good Bye.

Done! No issue. No discussion of immigration required. No lying or fraud involved.

-Samby

Precisely! And how do I know that? Been there, done that! And at that time I was actually in a lengthy VWP overstay. Not once during the conversation did I actually speak an untruth. So I got away with a written warning for doing a clocked 89 in a 65 and was on my way, albeit a bit slower.

[reeses16 8]

OP, thanks for sharing your experience. Crazy indeed. My favorite word from your post- "automagical".

[tony1343 0]

I'd be interested if anyone actually went to court on this where the cop showed up and it was contested.

I haven't done any legal research, but my gut reaction of this California law (or at least this interpretation of the law), is that it is unconstitutional (possibly under the Supremacy, interstate commerce clauses and the Federal government's authority to control immigration).

Here, the Federal Government says the Canadian is not a resident of the U.S. California can't now say, the Canadian is a Californian resident. Also under federal case law, domicile and residency is determined by the test: presence and an intent to remain indefinitely. I'd argue here, there is no intent to remain indefinitely unless proper status is conferred. Only at the point are you a Californian resident.

Also, this interpretation would seem to say that one who has a summer house in California (and so lives there for say 4 months) would need a California license. Yet, their residency wouldn't change to California since there is no intent to remain there indefinitely. This interpretation impedes interstate travel and commerce. But I'm just spouting, and I'd have to do research to back some of this up.

I'd like to think that over such a minor violation, if you said any of this, the prosecutor would just drop the charges.