it is completely unlawful to require non-commercial travellers on public roads to have licenses, insurance, inspections, and registrations, let alone subject them to stops, arrests and tickets or fines when no crime has been committed. unless actual or imminent destruction of property, or violation of anothers' rights has occurred, there is no valid cause of action. no right for a stop. traveling on public roads is not a privilege granted by the government [1].

it's already been adjudicated, by the supreme court, and state supreme courts, many times [2]. it seems, however, that the irrational fear of chaos and harm that might result from people travelling without government licensing and regulation is enough to keep these absurd and sometimes incredibly harmful and costly situations going for the foreseeable future.

ask yourself; would you spend tens of thousands on a vehicle only to crash it into others' property, or use it to intentionally murder or otherwise harm others? no? have you ever met anyone who would? if yes, would having or not having a license in their wallet stop such a person? i don't think so.

police should only be involved when actual crimes occur or are potentially about to occur. see a vehicle hit a mailbox, get in a wreck, with a leaky exhaust disturbing the peace, or someone driving recklessly endangering others, etc. then you can call 911.

search "Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel", for a fuller list of relevant case law.

[1] "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

[2] "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."

Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

"The essential elements of due process of law are ... Notice and The Opportunity to defend."

Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission."

Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

"... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."

Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389

"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516