State of Washington v. Shane R. Hopkins

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: November 10, 2022
• Docket: 38209-5
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOVEMBER 10, 2022 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 38209-5-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) SHANE R. HOPKINS, ) ) Appellant. )

FEARING, J. — Shane Hopkins appeals his convictions for attempting to elude a

police vehicle and second degree criminal trespass. We affirm.

A long recitation of the facts is unnecessary to resolve the appeal. Spokane

County Sheriff’s Deputy Jessica Baken stopped a vehicle driven by Shane Hopkins

because she suspected he drove the car and he was unlicensed to drive. She confirmed

his lack of a license on her patrol car’s computer. Hopkins refused to produce a

Washington State driver’s license when stopped. He informed Deputy Baken that he

needed no license.

Shane Hopkins argues the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution afford him the right to drive without a Washington driver’s license. No. 38209-5-III State v. Hopkins

Nevertheless, a state may validly exercise its police power and provide for public safety

by requiring driver licensing. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622, 35 S. Ct. 140,

59 L. Ed. 385 (1915). No court has recognized a fundamental right to operate a motor

vehicle arising from the Ninth Amendment. See National Association of Property

Owners v. United States, 499 F. Supp. 1223, 1246-47 (D. Minn. 1980), aff’d sub nom.

Minnesota v. Block, 660 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1981).

Shane Hopkins also maintains that a requirement of a driver’s license violates his

constitutional right to travel. While the United States Constitution provides some

protections for an individual’s right to travel, the right does not extend to a particular

mode of travel. City of Spokane v. Port, 43 Wn. App. 273, 274-76, 716 P.2d 945 (1986).

Shane Hopkins asserts that he must be allowed to drive to obtain food. Although

Spokane County’s design principally favors the automobile, Hopkins may use other

means of transportation such as bicycle, taxi, or public transit. State v. Clifford, 57 Wn.

App. 127, 130, 787 P.2d 571 (1990).

Shane Hopkins advances additional assorted articles and amendments from the

United States Constitution. He argues that article I, section 8, clause 17 of the

Constitution provides the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over

Washington’s roadways. Contrary to the contention, the clause grants the United States

Congress full control over the District of Columbia, our nation’s seat of government.

2 No. 38209-5-III State v. Hopkins

District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 104-10, 73 S. Ct. 1007, 97

L. Ed. 1480 (1953).

Shane Hopkins also argues the supremacy clause grants the United States

exclusive jurisdiction. We agree that the Constitution and laws of the United States

function as the supreme law of the land. U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2. But no congressional

enactment conflicts with Washington law demanding a driver’s license for operating a

motor vehicle.

Shane Hopkins argues that Spokane County Sheriff Deputy Jessica Baken lacked

probable cause to search his Department of Licensing records, which search led to

Hopkins’ traffic stop. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and

seizures. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Federal courts do not extend Fourth Amendment

protections to searches of driver’s records. Kennedy v. City of Braham, 67 F. Supp. 3d

1020, 1031-33 (D. Minn. 2014). Washington’s article I, section 7, which provides

greater privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment, also fails to protect an interest in

the information contained in a Department of Licensing driver’s record. State v.

McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 32, 60 P.3d 46 (2002).

Finally, Shane Hopkins contends that the State never established that he is a

United States citizen. Nevertheless, Hopkins’ citizenship status bears no relevance to the

question of whether he committed a criminal act in Washington.

3 No. 38209-5-III State v. Hopkins

CONCLUSION

We affirm Shane Hopkins’ convictions.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW

2.06.040.

_________________________________ Fearing, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________ Pennell, J. Staab, J.