DMV fees collected by drivers, paid to State Of California (monopoly over drivers) - then why is state threatening people with BANKRUPTCY….??? is their another choice, OR another DMV that the drivers can rely on for assurance that DMV won’t go bankrupt? Just like MULTIPLE AUTO INSURANCE AGENCIES, if one insurance company goes B/K, then you have a choice to go to another, however, in the DMV case, state is doubling fees, giving excuse that they need to collect more money for their own SELFISHLY CAUSED BANKRUPTCY, and so now, people have to pay for it??? why? Where are all those fees going? this is like Mommy And Daddy saying to the child that there’s no more food on the table, so we’re going to go broke.

June 30th, 2009

California DMV fee for SERVICE ONLY…

June 30th, 2009

Driving fees? we all pay them and Dmv is still funded by the State of California. In order to pay for all they do why can’t this branch of government be strictly ” fee for service” only, without any kind of taxpayer subsidy. They collect fees to regulate the automobile and trucking industry. The department as it’s called is involved many types of motor vehicle activities with numerous sub divisions to do the work of regulation and inspection such as but not limited to: Auto dismantlers, Commercial drivers licensing and regulation, motor vehicle registration, drivers licenses, automotive repair, regulation, car dealerships, etc. Give them a year, see what kind of revenue they bring in since the fees they charge are regulated by the state, Instead of providing the cars to certain Dmv staff allow them to use their own vehicles, but reimburse them for their mileage and expenses, just like private business, keep the salaries competitive in order to retain staff. I would imagine there would be a cost savings to the state.

DMV raising Testing Fees July 1 for NEVADA

June 30th, 2009

The Nevada DMV will start charging a fee for motorists applying for their instructional permit or driving license.

Limits to law in DUI repeat cases - Nevada

June 8th, 2009

Credit: Marinij.com - When a Novato man with at least a dozen DUI and speeding convictions was charged with killing a girl on his motorcycle last week, residents throughout Marin wondered the same thing: Why was he still allowed to drive?Answer: There was no law stopping him.

“There is no such thing as permanent (license) revocation,” said Jan Mendoza, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Motor Vehicles. “The longest you have it revoked is five years.”

Despite a long history of drunken and dangerous driving, Edward Schaefer was a duly licensed California motorist when he allegedly plowed his motorcycle into a Novato girl and her father May 27 on San Marin Drive.

Melody Osheroff, 9, was killed; Aaron Osheroff, 41, lost one leg and could lose the other; and Schaefer, 43, had an alleged blood-alcohol level of twice the legal limit for driving.

Although Schaefer’s criminal case is still in its early stages, the incident has already raised questions about the state of DUI laws in California.

“If you check the Department of Motor Vehicle records, he is listed as a valid driver,” said District Attorney Ed Berberian. “Whether he should have a license is a different issue, and, obviously, based on his record, no, he should not be licensed to drive.”

Prosecutors are still reviewing Schaefer’s legal history and prison terms - and many of the old records are difficult to track down - but the initial indications are that Schaefer’s prior DUIs were spaced out just enough to keep him

licensed under the contemporary laws, Berberian said.- On Oct. 11, 1990, Schaefer was convicted of two related DUI counts in Marin, receiving six months in jail on one count and 30 days concurrent in the other, according to the district attorney’s office. In addition to five years of probation and other terms, Schaefer had his license suspended for four years.

Court records indicate Schaefer had three DUIs on his record even before 1990, although one was purged, possibly because Schaefer was a juvenile at the time, Berberian said.

- On Aug. 13, 1991, Schaefer was convicted of another DUI in Marin. Prosecutors are still looking for the court file to determine whether his license was suspended again and what his sentence was.

- On Nov. 6, 1995, Schaefer received another DUI conviction in Marin. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail and had his license suspended another three years.

- On March 14, 2000, Schaefer was charged in another DUI case, this time in Sonoma County. Prosecutors elected to plead the case down to a so-called “wet reckless” charge, or reckless driving while intoxicated.

Spencer Brady, a leading prosecutor in Sonoma County, said the misdemeanor case file has been purged per office policy, so he could not comment on the reasoning behind the plea arrangement. But as a general rule, he said, prosecutors offer a “wet reckless” plea when there are “problems with proof,” such as proving the suspect was actually the driver of the vehicle.

Nonetheless, Schaefer still received a 30-day jail sentence, which Brady said is more than the typical wet reckless case. Brady also said a wet reckless plea counts as a prior DUI conviction in future drunken driving cases.

- On Sept. 27, 2003, Schaefer was arrested on DUI allegations in Reno, Nev., after a police officer watched him make an improper left turn on a 2003 Harley-Davidson.

“He made a very wide turn and drove up onto the sidewalk,” said Reno police spokesman Steve Frady.

Schaefer had bloodshot eyes, slurry speech and a half-consumed bottle of Smirnoff vodka in his right-front pocket. A breath test administered at the scene showed a blood-alcohol level of .215 percent, or nearly three times the legal limit, Frady said.

Schaefer, who was released from jail the next day, was convicted of DUI on Jan. 14, 2004, according to court records. Frady said the DUI was listed as a first-time offense in Nevada.

Despite that conviction, Schaefer’s license was renewed in California in February 2007. It was not due to expire until March 2012.

Mendoza, the DMV spokeswoman, said Nevada reports DUI convictions into a national database, and California considers those convictions when reviewing license applications.

But the point is moot in Schaefer’s case, because Nevada did not start reporting to the national database until 2005 - 11 months after Schaefer’s DUI conviction in Reno.

“The Nevada conviction is not showing on his California driving record because it was 2004,” Mendoza said.

As for Schaefer’s other California DUIs, the state purges convictions from a driver’s record after 10 years. So Schaefer’s convictions in 1990, 1991 and 1995 would have had no bearing on his license renewal in 2007.

“It’s like your credit report,” Mendoza said. “It gets cleared.”

Under current law, a first-time DUI conviction brings a four-month license suspension, a second conviction within 10 years means a one-year suspension, and additional convictions in the 10-year window result in suspensions of three to five years, Mendoza said.

Repeat offenders also have to use, for certain periods, ignition locking devices that test the driver’s breath for alcohol. But the devices can easily be defeated by having someone else blow into them.

Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who has a 9-year-old daughter, said he was “horrified” by the Melody Osheroff case and will look at legislative options.

“This story motivates me and my staff to redouble our efforts and to look into whether there are changes in the law that can better address the problem of getting these serial DUI offenders off the road,” said Huffman, D-San Rafael.

Huffman’s legislative director, Lawrence Cooper, noted certain obstacles to tougher DUI laws, however.

One hurdle is that the budget crisis has many legislators looking to reduce prison overcrowding, not increase it, so longer prison sentences are a difficult sell in Sacramento.

Another problem is that adding costly fees, fines and rehabilitation demands to DUI sentences only encourages offenders to drive without licenses, Cooper said. He said the DMV told him only 18 percent of repeat offenders complete expensive court-ordered rehabilitation programs.

“Giving someone a lifetime ban - the reality is, they’re going to drive anyway,” Cooper said. “And then they’re driving uninsured.”

In any case, Schaefer’s criminal history suggests a contempt for more than just DUI laws.

Court records show 18 criminal cases since 1984 in Marin County alone, including resisting arrest, theft, vandalism, battery and providing false information to police.

He also received four speeding tickets between November 2007 and January 2009, but they were not enough accumulated points for a license suspension, the DMV said.

“Additionally, Schaefer has a history of failing to appear in court for appearances on criminal charges,” Novato police Officer Nicholas Frey said in a bail affidavit filed last week.

Schaefer was also sentenced to a four-year prison term in February 2005 for felony domestic violence. He was released on March 21, 2008, said Araceli Guerrero, a spokeswoman for the state prisons department.

Guerrero did not know why Schaefer was released before the four years were up, but defendants routinely receive credit for work time, good behavior and the time they spent in county jail while the case was being adjudicated.

Schaefer’s long criminal history - punctuated by his extended middle finger in court Tuesday - suggests that a suspended driver’s license would probably not have deterred him from getting on his motorcycle the night Melody Osheroff and her father were struck, Berberian said.

“Someone with this type of attitude toward driving and the inability to control his alcohol consumption, the fact of a piece of paper would probably not have stopped him from driving,” he said.

Schaefer could face 17 years to life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder and other counts in the Osheroff case. He plans to plead not guilty at his next hearing on June 19, Deputy Public Defender Michael Schroettner said.

A business that helps people avoid the long lines

June 8th, 2009

CHICO — A Chico businesswoman with the intriguing title “Licensed Vehicle Verifier” provides a service that can help people avoid the sundry hassles of dealing with the Department of Motor Vehicles.Tina Martin, along with her mother, runs a business called Dynamics. Together, they negotiate all the paperwork needed to get cars, trailers, motorcycles, and even boats and airplanes, verified and eligible for registration in California.

State law requires that any vehicle not in the California DMV database be verified by a licensed vehicle verifier, DMV agent, or, in some cases, a California Highway Patrol officer.

Martin, 45, who has been verifying vehicles for about five years, said a lot of her business involves cars from other states, also known as non-resident vehicles. She also deals with older or antique cars that haven’t been registered for several years, and vehicles that have never been registered in California.

With harvest season approaching, she said she keeps busy this time of year verifying specialty vehicles and trailers used in farming and orchard operations.

She said verifications are usually based on information affixed to vehicles, such as the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and manufacturer information. She said documentation records often don’t match the physical evidence on the vehicle.

If it’s suspected the vehicle is stolen, the verification is turned over to the CHP.

Martin said she also deals in large volume with vehicle auction companies and local manufacturers of industrial and farming vehicles and trailers that will travel on public roadways.

A slow-down in business for car dealers has affected her, she said.

Quirks in California registration laws, including one that states any vehicle coming from the other 49 states with under 7,500 miles on it must be registered as new, create a labyrinth of red tape many people would like to avoid.

Martin charges about $20 to verify most vehicles.

Her mother charges about $45 for the remainder of the paperwork, which includes required filings with the DMV.

“The client never has to step foot inside the DMV,” Martin said.

Further, Martin goes to where the vehicle is, so if it’s not running, or can’t legally be moved, it’s not a problem.

To become a licensed vehicle verifier, one must have a clean criminal record, pass a background investigation, and post a $5,000 bond.

The state fee is about $50 for the licensed vehicle verifier certificate.

Ask the DMV: Even if it’s just a fender bender, call the DMV - Accidents must be reported if there’s more than $750 in damage or hurt.

June 8th, 2009

WHY DOES THE DMV WANT ACCIDENTS OF $750 IN DAMAGE OR MORE?  IT USE TO BE $500 OR MORE.  NOW IT’S $750 OR MORE.  WHY?

CALIFORNIA DMV George Valverde

My NY is been lost while in Italy ,how can i get replacement while i’m here in Rome?

June 7th, 2009

my NY driver license is been lost while in Italy, i will be 7more months here, how i can get a replacement here in Rome

Traffic Ticket Attorney Scott Feifer Warns Drivers Starting July 6, DMV’S Questionable ‘Tax’ Is Doubled From $35 to $70

June 5th, 2009

NEW YORK, June 4 /PRNewswire/ — NY traffic ticket lawyer Scott Feifer is furious, and he wants New York State drivers to know why. The NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has increased their scofflaw Suspension Termination Fee (STF) by 100%. This raises the fee required to end a suspension resulting from a failure to answer a ticket or pay a fine from $35 to $70. This fee may be applied on top of fines, surcharges, points, assessments, insurance increases and loss of your privilege to drive. We’re not calling it ransom money - but you might, especially now that it’s been doubled.

The increase is as of July 6. “This fee is already applied in a questionable fashion as a single mistake or incident can result in multiple STF charges. Now it’s doubled and the additional revenue will be deposited right into the state’s General Fund. This is yet another example of our legislators using drivers to help rebuild the state budget. No one is even pretending these increases are administrative or safety driven,” says NY traffic violations attorney Scott Feifer of Feifer & Greenberg, LLP

These fees pose real problems to drivers beyond just the expense. Doubling of a fee necessary to reinstate driving privileges, on top of the other expenses associated with traffic tickets, may increase the likelihood of an individual driving while still suspended. This can lead to minor issues such as inability to rent a car or quite major issues like criminal felony charges.

“The good news is that these fees can be avoided by proper management of each and every traffic ticket and driving related issue,” Mr. Feifer explains. “Knowing what courts want, when they want it and how to get it to them is imperative. Unfortunately, if you accrue STF fees by ignoring or improperly handling an issue, the fees cannot be reversed.”

DMV VIRGINIA CORRECTION: Smile, but just a little… ok - New driver’s license photo? Curb your enthusiasm

June 5th, 2009

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles would like to clear this up: You really are allowed to smile for your driver’s license photo.

A little.

Like Mona Lisa, with an ever-so-slight upward curl on both corners of the lips.

Just don’t bare your teeth.

DMV CALIFORNIA is acting f’d up - I’ll explain why

June 2nd, 2009

longline

img00110

  • #1 they jacked up the RENEWAL (DMV RENEWAL) fees by double
  • #2 the amount they send in the mail doesn’t match what amount Triple AAA Automobile Insurance Association Shows in their computer system
  • #3 they confuse dmv customers by asking for the fees, but not disclosing in the invoice if there are any citations or violations, which would inhibit the dmv from issuing RENEWAL STICKERS, etc, so the DMV essentially wants to COLLECT PAYMENT FIRST, and then send a notice to drivers indicating why the stickers haven’t been issued.
  • #4 the lines at the DMVs are still long, full of SWINE FLUs and wrapped around the building which ruins peoples lives and screws up their jobs and timing and stress levels
  • #5 Bad Customer Service - ATTITUDE at the DMVs are messed up since the employees are not happy to properly handle the customer requests.

img00111