AAMVA web site.
On Mexico, look on page 4 under section ll - Jurisdiction. Mexico is mentioned. In Mexico, you are Guilty if the Police decide you are ! Unless you can prove your innocense, you will be punished first under Mexican Law and then your home state. That is Napoleonic code and prevalent in the rest of the World including most Western countries.
On page 21, look at Part E. It requires a DLA member when dealing with a non-DLA jurisdiction to treat that jurisdiction as if they are a member of the DLA. Since Connecticut (CT) is a member, when they get a report of a traffic conviction even from Baja California, the CT DMV will penalize the CT driver for the Baja California ticket.
Wisconsin kangaroo remains a mysteryWisconsin kangaroo remains a mystery Posted February 28, 2005, 11:57 AM EST DODGEVILLE, Wis. -- Authorities in southern Wisconsin have discovered that...
On page 17, look at Part A. Part A requires some form of punishment even if the state does not have a equivalent statute for a given out of state offense. "The laws shall be broadly construed so that full force and effect is given to this section." A good example is Indiana does not have a "Careless Driving" statute but Michigan does. Under the Driver License Compact Rules, Indiana would take no action but under DLA, the IN BMV would have to punish the Indiana driver with some form of point penalty for a Michigan careless driving ticket. Indiana could do is bump it to "Reckless Driving" and charge 4 to 8 points even though it is 4 points in Michigan.
On page 19, exceptions are limited and require executive permission from the board. It basically means that states cannot put in language that would exempt out of state tickets from penalty points or before a home state can suspend a license for an out of state DUI, the other state has to allow for jury trials such as Colorado. New Jersey does not allow a jury trial for a DUI. Therefore, Colorado would not recognize the DUI. A New Jersey DUI is considered a civil matter.
If you look at parts of the DLA, it mentiones that drivers don't have much recourse to fight it in their home state court except for small stuff such as clerical errors. If the SCOTUS had not ruled that being punished for the same crime by two different jurisdictions (i.e. Federal and State) is not double jeopardy, we would not have this piece of bad legislation. Get a traffic ticket in a different state, pay that state's penalty ($$$ and points) and then get points when you return home. In my opinion as to strictly interpreting the US Consitution, it is double jeopardy.
As for equipment violations, most states do not buttess points for them but foreign jurisdictions (outside the US) might count points, more than likely, points buttessed would probably be based upon the home state's laws. An example is a speeding violation in South Dakota has no points (regardless of speed) but the South Dakota conviction reported to Indiana on an Indiana driver would accrue points under Indiana point system such as a ticket for 70 mph in a 55 mph zone would be 2 points. The DLA board as written in the DLA has a lot of leeway and could strongly encourage states to redo their point system to meet the spirit of the DLA.
In my own opinion, the DLA should be thrown out and states should stick with the Driver License Compact and Non-Resident Violator Compact concepts.
