Request By:
Hon. Clyde M. Thomas
Judge
Forty-Ninth Judicial District
P.O. Box 261
Franklin, Kentucky 42134
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General regarding a statement of facts pertaining to one John R. Lewis who owns a 1976 model car bearing Ohio license plates. You state that the Franklin Police Department has twice issued citations to operators of the vehicle for improper registration. The operators cited are relatives of Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis claims domicile in the state of Ohio but has applied for work in Tennessee, and on his job application gave his address as that of his parents in Franklin, Kentucky.
You ask if it is proper to operate this automobile in Kentucky, by anyone, on the Ohio registration and license plates.
Since you are the district judge who must rule on the citations, the decision is up to you. We, however, will give you the benefit of our research on the subject.
First, we would point out that Ohio and Kentucky each have statutes granting reciprocity in regard to automobile registration to citizens of the other state. Kentucky's statute is KRS 186.140. The predecessor's statute to this statute was Kentucky Statute § 2739g-5 which contained practically the same wording as the present statute. The statute was interpreted in the case of
Reeves v. Deisenroth, 157 S.W.2d 331 (1931). In discussing the meaning of the phrase "temporarily therein" the court, on page 336, stated as follows:
"Our conclusion is that the reciprocity provision of Section 2730g-5 of the statutes embraces the registration, licensing and granting of permits and certificates of convenience and necessity of all motor cars of nonresidents, whether used for private or personal purposes, or in a commercial enterprise. Giving the phrase 'temporarily therein' the common meaning when associated with the subject matter of temporary use of the highways of Kentucky, when such motor cars are operated on occasional or casual or infrequent or transitory trips into or through Kentucky, and the owner's home state allows similar exemptions, then they do not have to register or license them in Kentucky or procure permits or certificates required under other conditions. The provision does not exempt from any regulation or tax a motor car operated regularly or continuously or more than occasionally in Kentucky. They are subject to the same laws to which residents of Kentucky are subjected."
The problem in the state of facts you present is that it is not clear whether Mr. Lewis' residence is in Kentucky or Ohio. If it is in Ohio, then he is temporarily in Kentucky and entitled to the benefit of the reciprocity statute. If he has abandoned his residence in Ohio and established residence in Kentucky, then he should register his automobile in Kentucky as provided by KRS 186.150 which reads as follows:
"(1) No resident operating a motor vehicle on the highways, shall secure or license the motor vehicle in any state other than Kentucky, with intent to defraud this state of the license tax.
"(2) The use of a license of any state other than Kentucky by a resident of this state on his car driven over Kentucky highways shall be prima facie evidence of guilt."
It may be that in this case Mr. Lewis himself does not know where his residence is located. He may be in a state of transition and not really settled in any one spot. Furthermore, it is clear in the law that a person may have more than one residence at a time and may have different residences for different purposes. A person may claim one residence for voting purposes while he is physically present in another place. The problem is complicated inasmuch as state laws require that automobiles may be registered in only one state at a time. A person who is unsettled and moving about frequently may find himself cited in one state after another.
We think that the important factor in this matter is that a person should be currently registered in at least one state and that state should be the one in which he himself claims as his residence. Legal residency depends mainly on the intentions of the individual as to where he intends to live permanently and return to after he travels.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the right to travel freely throughout the United States is a fundamental right.
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972). Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides in part as follows:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . ."
The Supreme Court has also held that a person has a right to change his residence as often as he wishes and it may not be irrebutably presumed that he is a resident of a particular place.
Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973).
Also, it should be kept in mind that the licensing of vehicles is mainly for the purpose of regulation rather than the raising of revenue. This is particularly true in the case of Kentucky which has a very moderate vehicle registration fee.
In summary, we think the first question to be determined is where Mr. Lewis claims his residence is located. If he says it is in Ohio, that should settle the matter unless his actions contradict his statement. If he says his residence is in Kentucky, then he should register his automobile in Kentucky. Any citation for improper registration should be directed to Mr. Lewis and not to persons to whom he loans the use of his automobile.
Although the statutes pertaining to automobile registration are directed to the owner of the vehicle, it should be noted that KRS 186.020(1) provides, inter alia:
"If the owner of a motor vehicle does not reside in the Commonwealth, the motor vehicle shall be registered with the county clerk of the county in which the motor vehicle is principally operated."
Although there is no statute which forbids the lending of a vehicle to a person who will operate the vehicle outside of the state in which it was registered, we think it is the intent of the statute that such lending should not be on a permanent basis.
As you can see, questions involving residency are often very difficult and have been the source of much litigation. As to the registration of automobiles, we think that the statute should be liberally construed so as not to impinge upon a person's right to travel freely from one state to another. We have previously discussed this question in OAG 72-226 (copy enclosed).