Thanks, Oli.

Re. driving "privilege," the most obvious (to me) evidence that it's not a "right" is DWI. If a cop stops you on suspicion of DWI, you can refuse to take a brethalyzer test or get out of the car and walk a straight line. But if you take that tack, your license will be suspended, and you will be fined, as if you had been proven to be DWI.

Interesting (to me) treatment of traffic offenses: When I first got my license in NYC, traffic cases were heard in a Magistrate's Court before real judges. The judges treated a trial as if it were a criminal proceeding: you didn't have to testify, and the cop had to prove you guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I once heard a judge invoke Miranda to let a defendant off who had confessed to the cop, without being asked, that he was driving with a suspended license. Then the AAA called for "reform": It was undignified or worse to treat drivers as if they were "common criminals." NY State obliged by putting all traffic cases in the "Administrative Adjudication Bureau," which was under the aegis of the Motor Vehicle Bureau. They were heard by per-diem lawyers, paid by the Bureau. Result: when it came to your word vs. the cop's, they always took the cop's word. And, the same agency that was holding the proceeding took the fines.

Net: I never lost a case in Magistrate's Court; lost all of them that were heard in the Administrative Adjudication Bureau. The only times I got off in the latter were because those per-diem lawyers couldn't issue bench warrants. So, lots of times the accusing officer just didn't show up for the hearing. If he failed to show twice, the case was dismissed.