Violation of a Drivers License Restriction at a Burger King Drive Thru
Quote of the Day: “What I recommend you to do is to notice that we do not have any assurance that our lives will go on indefinitely. I have just said that change comes suddenly and unexpectedly, and so does death. What do you think we can do about it?” Carlos Castaneda, Journey to Ixtlan
For you folks out there with a “business purposes only” license, did anyone ever explain what the heck those three words mean?
If you read the statute, 322.271, it is pretty vague, but here it is:
- A driving privilege restricted to “business purposes only” means a driving privilege that is limited to any driving necessary to maintain livelihood, including driving to and from work, necessary on-the-job driving, driving for educational purposes, and driving for church and for medical purposes.
- A driving privilege restricted to “employment purposes only” means a driving privilege that is limited to driving to and from work and any necessary on-the-job driving required by an employer or occupation.
So, let’s say you have a business purposes only license. Can you drive to the grocery store? Can you drive to the gym to work out? Can you take your kids to school? Would getting dinner at a Burger King drive-thru violate a business purposes only license?
Our real-life case for today is State of Florida vs. Michael Quiroli, 9 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 780b, 15th Judicial Circuit. Mr. Quiroli was stopped by the Delray Beach Police Department while he was driving to Burger King for dinner and was charged with the misdemeanor crime of violating a driver’s license restriction.
Quiroli complained that his criminal conviction was invalid because his drive to get dinner was necessary to maintain his livelihood–one of the main quotes you can find above in 322.271.
The question is, what does it mean to drive to “maintain livelihood?” According to the court in Quiroli, they need to define “livelihood.” So, in order to maintain livelihood, by definition, maintaining such means doing things related to “housing, feeding, clothing, health, etc.” As such, “driving necessary to maintain livelihood includes driving necessary to obtain food.”
A similar result was reached on a case where the defendant was caught driving to McDonald’s to get something to eat, the court found that a business purposes only permits a driver to drive to shop for the basic necessities of life, such as food. See Allart v. State, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 499c (20th Circuit, Pinellas County, 2002).