Rik Munson

218 Landana Street

American Canyon, California Near [94503]
Domestic without the US

Certified Mail No. 7008 1300 0001 2581 4761

To: Dale E. Bonner

Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing
980 9th Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento California 95814-2719

Dear Secretary Bonner

In examining section 14607.4 of the California Vehicle Code regarding the seizure of
property used upon the streets and highways by an “unlicensed driver” it appears that
such unwarranted seizures are authorized without first proving on the basis of admissible
evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction that any offense has even been committed
prior to the warrantless seizure. In support of the enactment Vehicle Code Section 1406.4
(g) states:

The Safe Streets Act of 1994 is consistent with the due process
requirements of the United States Constitution and the holding of the
Supreme Court of the United States in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht
Leasing Co., 40 L. Ed. 2d 452.

I find the Legislatures reliance on Calero troubling for a multitude of reasons.

Firstly, in viewing the above authority I note the distinction that is to be made between
the United States Constitution and the Constitution for the United States of America.

Secondly, as Puerto Rico is a self-governing unincorporated territory of the United States

and not a state of the union, application of the Constitution to Puerto Rico is limited. In
the several U.S. Supreme Court cases decided early in the 20th century referred to as the
insular cases the Supreme Court held that full constitutional rights did not automatically
extend to all areas under American control.

1. Does the legislature contend by its reliance on Calero that application of the
Constitution to the people of California is limited?
If so then:
a. In relying upon federal case law, originating upon the waters of a self-
governing unincorporated territory of the United States, for proclaiming
the constitutionality of California Statutes, is the legislature asserting that
the peoples common use of the streets and highways of California for
traveling purposes is subject to:
i. the commercial regulatory jurisdiction of Congress under Article I
Sec. 8 cl.3?

7008 1300 0001 2581 4761

 ii. the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress under Article I Sec. 8 cl.17?
iii. the territorial Jurisdiction of Congress under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2?
iv. the Admiralty jurisdiction of Congress under Article III Sec. 2 cl.1?
2. When ones automobile is only used upon the streets and highways of
California as property for traveling purposes and not in the carriage of
passengers or freight for compensation:
a. are the people or their property subject to federal Article III and/or
concurrent state admiralty jurisdiction?
i. If so then under what conditions or circumstances?
b. subject to congresses regulatory Article 1 commerce authority?
i. If so then under what conditions or circumstances?
c. subject to federal Article IV territorial jurisdiction?
i. If so then under what conditions or circumstances?
d. are the people or their property subject to federal Article 1 exclusive
legislative jurisdiction?
i. If so then under what conditions or circumstances?

Thank you for your attention to this request,

Respectfully

Rik Munson

7008 1300 0001 2581 4761