David, great to hear from you again. It would seem that you have learned a lot about warrantless arrests since our last encounter! I hear you’ve been saying great things about me on the radio… which, to your credit, means that people are listening. Congratulations.
Your email seems to only serve as a Notice to the Sheriff’s Office and does not actually ask for a response. But, I am happy to share my thoughts.
[This post is by Coty Wamp, counsel to Hamilton County sheriff Jim Hammond, in response to a letter a few hours earlier from me regarding continuing violations of the arrest by officer without warrant law. — DJT[
Driving on a Revoked License, in Ms. Strickland’s case, is an A misdemeanor. It is an A misdemeanor based upon her previous criminal history (see the Driving on Revoked statute TCA 55-50-504). As you well know, an A misdemeanor is a criminal offense punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in the jail.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion on criminal statutes and legislative intent, Driving on a Revoked License is an offense that qualifies under TCA 40-7-103(a)(1) as an offense that is subject to arrest without a warrant. The Deputy did, in fact, witness Ms. Strickland driving a vehicle and subsequently verified that her license to do that has been revoked.
Thank you for your Administrative Notice. Some of it, such as the citizen’s arrest portion, does not seem applicable to this case, as Ms. Strickland was arrested by a sworn Deputy. Further, your thoughts on a public offense being “akin” to a breach of peace are very interesting. However, the statute you’ve cited, which is the correct statute, specifically lists both “public offense” and “breach of peace” which tends to indicate that there is a difference between the two—if not, why would the legislature include both?
Regardless, the law and courts are well-settled on the fact that an individual may be arrested, without a warrant, for driving on a revoked license. If there is a case that states this is unconstitutional, please forward to me, as I would love to read it.
Also in regard to your breach of peace argument, it would insinuate that there must be a breach of peace for an officer to make a warrantless arrest. If you believe this, do you believe that an officer who finds heroin, or any other illegal narcotic, in a person’s waistband does not have the ability to arrest that person without a warrant because that offense is not a “breach of peace” as you describe it? Surely not.
If a deputy were required to swear out a warrant on this type of case before he makes an arrest, he would be allowing the person to continue breaking the law by driving away.
Unless your insinuating that another deputy would sit on the side of the road with Ms. Strickland while the original deputy traveled to 601 Walnut Street to swear out the warrant? Again, surely not. Regardless, the law does not require that.
I respect your opinion and I do hope that Ms. Strickland can sort things out so that her license is reinstated and her registration renewed so that this does not happen again.
Well, it sounds like she is so far away from being able to prove the element of “driving” that she doesn’t even want to make an approach to it.
That’s too bad, because it leaves the deputies holding the bag.
I suppose the Satanists in and around government would call this progress. That someone can attend school for a couple of years, pass the exam, and become a B.A.R. attorney. While having no clue whatsoever of what a Lawful warrant is, and not giving a rat’s ass either. As long as the deposits are made into her bank account on time.
Of course, it won’t be her actually committing the felony assault of false arrest/imprisonment on her fellows, she is just approving the activity for the “sworn deputies” to do.
Yeah man, shoot first, and look for evidence later.
She can hook the “sworn deputies” up with some of that mythical qualified immunity.
I appreciate and respect Ms Wamps input on this, and she is 100% correct on every matter.
Obviously well schooled in State Laws and Policy and Procedure, as a former prosecutor , Atlanta Ga, I have seen and reviewed many similar cases, and in all cases, the traffic stops and follow up arrests were subsequently lawful and under full code of law.
I also noted Mr Luman’s remarks, and consider him totally full of s—, not hard to spot a SovTard these days. I put many of these idiots in jail for such self-educated stupidity.
Well schooled, is that like the training of Pavlov’s dog? Hey, were you a prosecutor in Atlanta back when Slick Willy came on the 5 o’clock news to issue his edict that all states shall adopt his 0.08 DUI threshold?
I suppose that would be the kind of legislation you like (since it lined your pockets). Maybe David could have you on the radio to explain to the riff-raff what a Lawful warrant is the in first place. At any rate, I always enjoy hearing the lunatic ravings of a former “bought-and-paid-for” persecutor for the District of Columbia.
And don’t forget, you are cordially and permanently invited to make a case for me being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” anytime.
P.S. Thanks for the huff and puff, maybe next time you can through in some impressive harruumpphh’s.
Mr Luman-
Thanks for your response, I found your input, humorous, hilarious and downright comical, If I’d had a dollar for every time I heard those comments, I could have retired a long time ago. In regard to my pockets, they’ve never been ” Lined ” according to your terms, I had a job to do, and I did it well.
You’re obviously schooled in your own beliefs, that’s your providence. In terms of debating with you, unlike yourself, I work for a living, I work two jobs in a small practice and I teach classes in criminal law to promising individuals who want to make a difference in society, including dealing with people of their own version of the Constitution etc as they do.
With your past arrest history, I hardly consider you a debate-worthy opponent and wouldn’t waste my time listening to your gross interpretation of your version of the law. My previous encounters with people of your particular philosophy, I have indeed heard the question of jurisdiction brought up, many times, I don’t waste mine or the courts time dealing with that, I bind those cases over for jury trial and proceed from there.
In most all cases, those parties are incarcerated, fined, or both, under FULL CODE OF LAW. No exceptions.
I wish you the best, and hope you stay out of trouble, laws and legislation are changing frequently, and actions are being taken to further deal with people with those particular ideology. See
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310/domestic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement
This link might shed some light on the real legal issues hear, seems to be a constant question with you government hating Sovereign Types.
https://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states?fbclid=IwAR1ioSbrO_ODN5b9Sn2gJKnVH5BpeJNz7Jiekf-ibV_9JI5swe8TU2EfqQ4
Good luck to you.
Is name-calling and innuendo all that you would have in response to a proper and lawful challenge to jurisdiction?
It would seem that an officer of the court would be thrilled to prove it to exist as a matter of Law.