Most states reserve the right to impose reasonable restrictions upon their drivers’ licenses. A conviction for violating such restrictions, however, can have criminal penalties in addition to collateral license penalties. Is this too much?
From a policy standpoint, restrictions are seen as a way to help keep the roads safe. If a driver has difficulty seeing at night or has been punished to only driving for work purposes, legislators want to deter these drivers from violating these restrictions. Since the division of motor veheicles can suspend or imose further restrictions, is it necessary to also impose a criminal penalty? Kansas does impose a penalty under KSA 8-245.
For prosecutors, these cases can be difficult to prove. For instance, if a driver is restricted to only driving for work purposes, how does a prosecutor prove it was not for work purposes if the driver claims it was for a work task? If possible, you could subpoena the employer. Also, environmental factors can come into play. If someone is driving around at 3 AM, it is less likely they are driving for work purposes.
For the defense, most of the work can come in to sentence mitigation. Again, I believe one could argue to the Judge that the department of motor vehicles already provides full suspension or further restriction penalties, so why punish too much criminally? Most people would debate this issue, however.
Until next time, drive safe!