[Cite as State v. Gabriel,
2025-Ohio-2971.]
COURT OF APPEALS
PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 24-CA-00013
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Perry County Municipal
Court, Perry County, Ohio, Case No. TRD
MICHAEL PAUL GABRIEL, 2400959
Defendant – Appellant Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: August 19, 2025
BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate
Judges
APPEARANCES: NANCY RIDENOUR, for Plaintiff-Appellee; MICHAEL PAUL
GABRIEL, pro se, Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Montgomery, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Michael Paul Gabriel (“Appellant”), appeals the Perry
County Municipal Court, Perry County, Ohio, decision finding him guilty of speeding. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF CASE
{¶2} Appellant was cited for operating a motor vehicle 69 mph in a 55-mph zone,
in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(1). Appellant pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to
trial. Appellant moved to dismiss the charge, advancing constitutional arguments that he
is a "private traveler" and not subject to the State's licensing or speed regulation statutes
because he was not engaged in commerce. The trial court denied the motion and found
Appellant guilty. Appellant filed the instant appeal.1
FACTS
{¶3} On October 5, 2024, Appellant was operating a motor vehicle on an Ohio
state route, in Perry County. Appellant was driving, with his children in the car, to visit
some friends. A highway trooper pulled over Appellant and cited him for operating a
motor vehicle is excess of the speed limit (speeding) - going 69 in a 55-mph zone.
Although Appellant did not provide the trooper with his license at the time of the stop,
Appellant does have a valid driver’s license.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶4} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR
LACK OF A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION, WHERE THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS
EXERCISING A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND WAS
NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY SUBJECT TO STATUTORY
REGULATION.”
{¶5} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISREGARDING BINDING UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AFFIRMING THAT NO STATE MAY
CONVERT A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE AND CRIMINALIZE THE EXERCISE
THEREOF WITHOUT A LICENSE.”
{¶6} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PROSECUTION TO
PROCEED WHERE THE ELEMENT OF WILLFULNESS COULD NOT BE PROVEN
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AS REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS.”
1
This Court notes that two pending motions remained at the time this matter was submitted for
oral argument on August 5, 2025. By virtue of rendering this Opinion, we need not further address
said motions.
ANALYSIS
{¶7} Because the first two assignments of error are interrelated, we address
them together. In his first and second assignments of error, Appellant argues that
because he has a fundamental right to travel, and because he was not engaged in
commercial activity at the time in question, the State cannot enforce its rules or
regulations upon him. We disagree.
{¶8} The constitutional right to travel is well settled. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489
(1999). However, it is equally well settled that this right does not extend to the specific
mode of transportation, such as operating a motor vehicle. As the United States Supreme
Court reinforced in Saenz, the right to travel is simply the right to move freely and
indiscriminately between the states. In Saenz, the Court stated:
The “right to travel” discussed in our cases embraces at least three different
components. It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to
leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than
an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for
those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be
treated like other citizens of that State.
Saenz, at 500.
{¶9} Federal courts have emphasized that the fundamental right to travel does
not equate to a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. See Duncan v. Cone, 2000
WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir.), citing Miller v. Reed,
176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 1999)
(the defendant did not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle).2 “[T]he right to
travel is protected under the Fifth Amendment, but it is not an absolute right. States have
the power to regulate the use of their highways and require drivers to have a valid license.”
Strickland v. Cusick,
2023 WL 9955698, at *1 (E.D. Mich.), citing Hendrick v. Maryland,
235 U.S. 610 (1915); Mors on behalf of Grady El v. Canton Police Dep't,
2020 WL
2308679, at *5 (E.D. Mich.) (citation omitted) (“While the Fifth Amendment creates and
protects a fundamental right to travel, ‘there is no fundamental right to drive a motor
vehicle,’ and states are free to require drivers to have licenses.”). A burden on a single
mode of transportation does not impede one's right to travel. Duncan, at *2 (“A burden on
a single mode of transportation simply does not implicate the right to interstate travel.”);
Miller,
176 F.3d, at 1205-06; Aziza El v. City of Southfield,
2010 WL 1063825, at *5 (E.D.
Mich. Mar. 22, 2010) (“Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to operate a motor
vehicle and state licensure and registration requirements do not violate an individual's
constitutional right to travel.”).
2
The Miller court explained that the right to travel does not mean the right to a particular mode of
transportation, such that the DMV did not unconstitutionally deny Miller’s right to a driver’s license.
The Miller court stated:
“The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Berberian v. Petit,
118 R.I. 448,
374 A.2d 791 (1977), put
it this way:
The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its
relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being
prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor
vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel
interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no
hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right. 374 A.2d at 794.” (Emphasis added.)
Miller, at 1206.
{¶10} Ohio courts have applied the same analysis, holding that the “mode of
transportation” upon the roadways is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation. Indeed,
“[t]he Supreme Court of Ohio has adopted the proposition that the right of a citizen to
operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state is not a natural or unrestricted
right, but a privilege which is subject to reasonable regulation under the police power of
the state, in the interest of public safety and welfare.” Ryan v. Andrews, 50 Ohio App. 2d
72, 76 (1976), citing State v. Starnes,
21 Ohio St.2d 38 (1970) (finding the right to operate
a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway is not a natural or unrestrained right but
a privilege which is subject to reasonable regulation under the police power of the state
in the interest of public safety).
{¶11} In Matthews, the defendant asserted that, “freedom and movement and
travel are ‘rights’ which cannot be unconstitutionally ‘converted’ into a governmental
privilege by requiring licensure and registration.” State v. Matthews, 2016-Ohio–5055,
¶ 7 (2d Dist.). The Second District rejected the argument stating:
[T]here is no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and a “burden on a
single mode of transportation simply does not implicate the right to interstate
travel.” St. Paris v. Galluzzo [2d Dist. Champaign No. 2014-CA-4, 2014–
Ohio–3260], at ¶ 15, quoting State v. Gunnell, 10th Dist. Franklin No 13AP–
90, 2013–Ohio–3928, ¶ 13 (which quoted Duncan v. Cone, 6th Cir. No. 00–
5705, 2000 WL 1828089 (Dec. 7, 2000)). “The right of a citizen to operate
a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state is not a natural or
unrestricted right, but a privilege which is subject to reasonable regulation
under the police power of the state in the interest of public safety and
welfare.” State v. Starnes, 21 Ohio St.2d 38, 45,
254 N.E.2d 675 (1970),
quoting Blow v. Commr. of Motor Vehicles, 64 N.W.2d 351, 352 (S.D.1969).
Licensure and registration are such reasonable regulations.
Id.
{¶12} Based on these well-established principles, the court in Eytcheson similarly
overruled the defendant’s constitutional arguments and determined “the trial court
properly distinguished between the right to interstate travel and the privilege of operating
a motor vehicle, which is subject to reasonable regulation.” State v. Eytcheson, 2018-
Ohio-2036, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.).
{¶13} Thus, contrary to Appellant’s position, the fundamental right to travel does
not equate or extend to the right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. The
operation of a motor vehicle is considered a privilege that is subject to state regulation in
the interest of public safety. Ohio’s traffic laws, such as requiring a driver’s license and
obeying stated speed limits are reasonable state regulations in place to protect the public
and promote safety on Ohio’s roadways. Said regulations are a valid exercise of the
State’s police power and simply do not restrict Appellant’s fundamental right to travel. 3
Appellant’s argument that he is not subject to Ohio’s traffic laws (here, speed limits) is not
well-taken.
{¶14} Appellant’s argument that he is not subject to the traffic laws, including R.C.
4511.21, because he was not engaged in commercial activity is likewise without merit.
Ohio law makes no distinction in its enforcement of its traffic laws. As set forth, Ohio’s
3
The United States Supreme Court cases cited by Appellant, who is pro se, are simply not on
point and are not dispositive under the facts of this case, no matter how much Appellant tries to
assert the principles from those cases.
traffic laws are a valid exercise of the State’s police power and are intended to promote
safety for all users of public roadways. Spalding v. Waxler, 2 Ohio St. 2d 1, 4 (1965)
(recognizing that the traffic provisions set forth R.C. 4511.21 were enacted for the public
safety and establish specific requirements to be followed by operators of motor vehicles).
Such provisions apply equally to all motorists – including Appellant - regardless of
whether their travel is for business, commercial, leisure, or personal reasons. Such
provisions apply because they do not impede one’s fundamental right to travel. Thus,
Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶15} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the court erred in allowing
the prosecution to proceed where the element of “willfulness” could not be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, as required by constitutional standards. Appellant’s argument is
frivolous. The speeding provision set forth in R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) does not contain any
element of culpability.
{¶16} First, R.C. 2901.22 sets forth the culpable mental states for criminal
offenses, namely purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. “Willfulness” is not
even listed as a culpable mental state. Second, and more importantly, R.C. 2901.21
states in relevant part:
(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a person is not
guilty of an offense unless both of the following apply:
(1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a
voluntary act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is
capable of performing;
(2) The person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element
as to which a culpable mental state is specified by the section defining the
offense.
(B) When the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of
culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability
for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for
a person to be guilty of the offense. …
(Emphasis added.)
{¶17} “Generally, strict liability attaches to offenses which are regulatory in nature
and which are designed to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the community.”
State v. Buehler Food Markets, Inc., 50 Ohio App. 3d 29, 30 (1989). And, when a statute
reads “no person shall engage” in certain conduct, and does not reference a culpable
mental state, the statute indicates a legislative intent to impose strict liability. State v.
Shaffer,
114 Ohio App.3d 97, 102–103 (3d 1996); State v. Finn, 2009–Ohio–4949, ¶¶ 23–
29 (2d Dist.). Here, R.C. 4511.21(D) states “no person shall” operate a motor vehicle on
a street or highway (1) “[a]t a speed exceeding fifty-five miles per hour ….” This section
is clearly designed to protect the safety and well-being of all motorists on Ohio’s roads.
It “does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose
strict criminal liability” for the conduct described. See R.C. 2901.21(B). Thus, R.C.
4511.21(D)(1), for which Appellant was found guilty, is a strict liability offense and does
not require the State to prove “willfulness” or any other culpable mental state. Appellant’s
third assignment of error is without merit and overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶18} Appellants’ first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled in
their entirety and the judgment of the Perry County Municipal Court, Perry County, Ohio,
finding Appellant guilty of speeding, in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) is affirmed.
{¶19} Costs to Appellant.
By: Montgomery, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
King, J. concur.
