Officer Mark Niethammer, suspended in December 2015 for drag racing his police cruiser, gives a tyke a push on his self-propelled car during a presumably friendly neighborhood visit. (Photo Chattanooga Police Department)
My most recent encounter with police was the night I returned to Chattanooga from a visit to the Gnome of Strawberry Plains.
The Gnome is a lifelong free man who has refused to cooperate with the machinery of the modern administrative state and has stood his ground as traveler, carpenter and nontaxpayer.
By David Tulis
That evening I’d passed under a green light in front of the Wal-Mart in Hixson at which a police car sat. He chased after me, and I pulled over at the next light. A headlamp was out, the officer said. That was probable cause to stop me, so I met his demands.
Driver license. Proof of insurance. Registration. Since I use a Toyota Camry “in commerce” by my own admission, I had these requisite proofs of an equitable and commercial relationship with the state — and produced them. He let me go with a “take care of that” warning and a cheery, “Be safe out there.”
The alleged crime was intentless (lacking mens rea, the basis of any convictable crime), and victimless, but it had sufficient probable cause to warrant a detention or arrest. The traffic infraction in commerce was the legal basis for the stop.
Harassment
Causeless and baseless traffic encounters, however, are another matter. In Southeast Tennessee it happens often in the town of Signal Mountain. But elsewhere, too.
Late Friday night on Memorial Day weekend a massive roadblock joined the Georgia and Tennessee like on Ringgold Road in Rossville, Ga., according to a son, 20, Josiah, riding in a pickup truck.
Across the region, police departments, sheriff’s deputies and the Tennessee highway patrol put up roadblocks that weekend that seemed not to comport with the rules laid out in the Hicks decision. That opinion made explicit the requirement for notorious publication of a roadblock as one way to help members of the public avoid it.
Why care? Probable cause
Thanks to YouTube and Facebook, videos of police encounters are encouraging people to stand up for their rights.
As resistance to the police state (aka commercial government) rises, officers have a chance to reconsider claims upon innocent members of the traveling public. That will make them less likely to harass with fishing expedition stops, quicker to end traffic stops and more accommodating to a traveler or motorist who refuses to show documents absent probable cause.
Last week circulated early photos of cops wearing a modified federal flag, one with a blue line running through the field of red and white stripes. I suspect such modification is unlawful, especially for a government actor. But the blue bar refers to cops and their office; they are the “thin blue line” between safety and violence, between lawful society and anarchy, between public welfare and chaos.
The cop’s blue line tells that his duty is the preservation of the state.
We have a blue line, too. For us, the blue line is figurative. It’s a warfare line between the state’s ontologically imperative expansion of its claims against our liberties and anything outside its control.
Our happy blue line is etched in Tennessee’s bill of rights, article 1, section 7, that says,
That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not be granted.
Your absolute protection in a traffic stop is this provision. It allows lawful traffic stops and forbids unlawful ones. It demarcates abusive and legal traffic stops.
Unless the officer has probable cause or an articulable reasonable suspicion, he has no authority to stop you under Article 1. If he stops you absent probable cause, he is acting in his own personal capacity as he walks up to your window and bellows out an order, exposing him to charges of criminal oppression (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-403).
How cops get your flapping lips going
His power of persuasion, however, is going to put to work. Engaging you in conversation, he will get you to make an admission that will give him probable cause for which he is searching to convert traffic infraction into a drug stop.
“Do you know why I stopped you?”
“Tell me why I pulled you over.”
“Why were you traveling so fast?”
These are invitations for you to make a confession.
“I stopped you for a reason. Do you know what it is?”
“Do you have drugs, guns or anything in the car that I should know about?”
“You are out late. Were you at a party? Was there drinking?”
We should always be about educating and encouraging the officer to respect and regard highly law-abiding people (making you one of the “us” is the cop’s intensely trained “us vs. them” mentality). That’s why we speak respectfully with the officer. But firmly nonetheless.
“Do you have probable cause to stop me? Did you see me commit a crime?”
“Do you have probable cause to think that I am about to commit a crime?” “Do you have a warrant for my arrest? Are you delivering an indictment to me, officer?”
Once you present yourself as someone who will not surrender, the officer has to decide whether to be belligerent and angry, or deal reasonably with your exercise of your rights.
He demands to see your driver license, proof of insurance and registration, the three pillars of commercial government’s long battle against the right to travel.
“Officer, will anything I hand over to you be used against me in court?” you ask. “I have a right not to say or do anything that might tend to incriminate me in civil or criminal proceedings. If I say or hand you anything, will it be used against me? Officer, am I free to leave?”
If he says no, then you are under arrest, and your rights under Arizona vs. Miranda kick in. You have a right to remain silent. You have a right to an attorney. You have a right to not answer any questions or do or present anything that might incriminate you. Including showing any of your requisite paperwork.
Officer, am I free to leave?
Here’s what I would probably say, for better or worse:
“Officer, I maintain all my rights at all times, and at no time do I yield any right — any civil right, any statutory right or any constitutional right. I want to thank you for helping guarantee these rights through your oath of office in service to our city and the Chattanooga police department. I really appreciate your concern for public safety, and I hope you have a good and safe night. But my question to you is, am I free to leave?”
Here you are showing yourself to be the good guy, the knowledgeable citizen who understand the cop’s job, and your place as a free citizen to exercise your liberty. I think cops actually like such people, because they understand cops and their difficult job.
If you maintain a respectful attitude, say sir and officer a lot, the cop may be mollified, and will concede you are free to leave.
But what if he is huffy and intends to arrest you?
Keeping your schedule
Here now is the law of convenience that prompts most people to cave in to a lawless and baseless traffic stop like those thrust upon travelers and motorists by the Signal Mountain police department late nights.
He says you are under arrest, and jerks at the door of the car, which you (doofus) left unlocked. He is arresting you, and you are not exactly hearing what he is saying, and the moment he says it you forget, because you are confused and angry. (Keep your smart phone on record as long as you can.)
He is arresting you before you have a chance to cave in by producing a driver license and those papers in that plastic bag in your glove compartment.
I suggest the following:
“Officer, you have no cause to arrest me. I have done nothing wrong, have violated no ordinance or law. You appear to be acting under your own authority, your own personal authority. If you act against me to arrest and detain me apart from lawful authority, you are acting in your personal capacity. Consider whether you are violating the oppression statute, which forbids personal abuse in the name of the state without lawful authority and makes it a felony offense against the peace and dignity of the state.
“Without lawful authority or probable cause, you act against me in your personal capacity, and are vulnerable to criminal claims for oppression and my personal claims against you personally for this abusive treatment.”
“I do not answer questions. I make no statement apart from my attorney. I do not give permission to search. This is a lawless stop, and you have no authority based on probable cause or articulable suspicion. I suggest you reconsider your actions in light of my constitutional guarantees. You have an interest to protect the innocent public, of which I am a member. I urge you to relax, to take a deep breath, and consider that I am innocent, harmless and doing nothing to offend any law, or you.”
A deputy tells all
Eddie Craig, formerly a deputy in Texas, says traffic rule violations are almost always a pretext for demands for an interrogation and a search. ““An officer’s first job when he gets you pulled over for a traffic stop is to attempt to escalate that stop to either a DUI or a drug bust. He doesn’t care about the traffic, that’s just his premise for pulling you over. His real goal is to get inside that car and see what else he can find.
They are taught to find ways to keep the person in the car talking and answering questions that will allow them to continue their fishing expedition.”
Mr. Craig now runs Rule of Law Radio and makes available a Traffic stop action script, a PDF you can download from this site giving general advice. Please look it over.
He also says submitting any documents absent probable cause will let the cop use those documents to entangle you in the court system. If you stand your ground there — refusal to show or state anything absent probable cause — you lengthen the traffic stop, but keep the encounter off your calendar and off the city court docket.
Support this website by subscribing to it and liking me on Facebook. Thank you.
Sources: Justin Gardner, “Former-Cop Exposes How Police Will Violate Your Rights During Every Stop & How to Beat It,” Free Thought Project, June 7, 2016. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/deputy-tells-avoid-roadside-rights-violations-transportation-stop-script/#lyFYuwbMFsblFAYK.99
I love your article! The sad thing is that probably most people are so shook up by police shows of force that they will not speak up during a stop. Some will, but many won’t.
They’ll think of all kinds of things to say later, and it’s too late. After I’d practiced as a public defender for a couple of years, a bailiff asked me to name the most surprising thing I’d learned as an attorney. I told him that, sadly, it was learning about bad cop behavior as reported to me by clients. He actually agreed and said it was all probably true. I took a case to trial that was obvious police brutality and we won. The judge came off the bench and to my client and said, “In my 30 years in law, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed more wholeheartedly with a verdict.”
In my course, so far I touch on being respectful to the cop, I talk about probable cause, about identifying yourself and asking for an attorney, about keeping one’s mouth shut, about searches, warrants, and about trick questions like “do you mind if I search your car?” At which point any answer can be construed by the cop as a positive (no = I don’t mind so search, and “yes” = cop thought he had permission. Cop: oops.)
I include in the course for people to be specific: You may not search my car. In developing the material, I grappled with how radical to be in the area. My Law 101 for New Adults class here in the Chattanooga area is at http://illumenedge18.com/
EDDIE CRAIG & THE “NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER’S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX” !!!
FIRST SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nok7Cby28 (Go to video FIRST. Then, go to 54:00-112:00; 118:00-120:45; 133:00-134:00 & 235:00-236:30.). These are the exact times of the hoax exposed below.
THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. But, this is exactly BACKWARDS (OPPOSITE to the truth).
THE TRUTH:
The STATES CAN require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE “NOT” ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”.
BACKGROUND:
The original source of the word, “COMMERCE” as used in connection with driver’s license law, is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa…le-i-section-8 . This clause empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate driver’s licences ONLY IF the driver WAS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (“interstate COMMERCE”). The tenth amendment empowered the STATES to regulate driver’s licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS (meaning OUTSIDE of “[interstate] COMMERCE”). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES can regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS “NOT” ENGEGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. But, Eddie Craig does not know this.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The U.S. Constitution divided the powers between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The FEDERAL government was empowered to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Under the tenth amendment, the STATES were empowered to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS). Under this division of powers, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law.
Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. This means that in terms of subject matter, FEDERAL law and STATE laws ARE “OPPOSITES” OF ONE ANOTHER. Thus, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are “based on” the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes, BECAUSE FEDERAL CODES AND STATE CODES REGULATE “OPPOSITE” LEGAL SUBJECTS (“[interstate] COMMERCE” v. (“NON-[interstate] COMMERCE”). But, Eddie Craig does not know this.
APPLICATION:
FEDERAL driver’s license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. STATE drivers license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE NOT engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, if YOU ARE a driver engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”, then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). If YOU ARE NOT a driver engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”, then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle).
Either way, A DRIVER’S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know this.
HOW WELL DO EDDIE CRAIG’S LEGAL THEORIES WORK IN COURT?
Answer: They don’t! EDDIE CRAIG ACTUALLY LOST HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE because he used this very same amateur legal theory in court (“STATE driving laws do not apply to me unless I am engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE.”) . State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, Offense date 12-11-2011, ARREST Date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION Date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s worse, Craig CONTINUED to make and post videos online in which he peddled this very same amateur legal theory AFTER he LOST that case (after 6- 28-2013), AFTER HE KNEW THAT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK!
DISCLAIMER:
The ownership, management and staff of InfoWars are not responsible for the false claims of Eddie Craig. They had no way to know (and did not know) that Eddie Craig was not telling the truth.
NOTE: Advising people what to say to law enforcement officers and to judges may constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Texas, a crime. Victims who have paid for classes, seminars and/or books involving Eddie Craig may be entitled to a refund under STATE or FEDERAL law.
THE LAW:
You will note that Eddie Craig’s amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court.
The FEDERAL government has the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses IF THEY “ARE” ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. The STATES have the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses IF THEY ARE “NOT” ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. Either way, A DRIVER’S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.
APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has proven that you ARE “NOT” engaged in “interstate COMMERCE”, then you have just proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations). But Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
Eddie Craig claims that he is a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” and an “EXPERT” in the law. But, this is not so. The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas, for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”. Craig uses this his TWO-WEEK tenure as a PART-TIME JAILER as the basis for his “CREDIBILITY” as an “EXPERT” on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes. But, Eddie Craig is not credible and is not an expert in the law.
ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Eddie Craig’s role in the “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX”, Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.