Not an American, but I was surprised when he went and searched her vehicle. Doesn’t he need permission or probable cause to be looking for a particular “something” rather than just tossing the car?
I get that the bar is really low but “Her license is suspended so maybe there’s contraband in the sedan*” feels like him hoping to stack more violations on top.
*not an SUV
I think joe rogan was improv-ing this part with his actual beliefs
Or are you just happy to see me? (sorry not sorry)
I believe the rule is that he can only search the car if he reasonably believes there is a safety concern or if he’s looking for evidence of the offense of the arrest itself (see Arizona v. Gant - Wikipedia). So I guess he could be checking for things like explosives or caustic chemicals that could make it dangerous to tow the car or store it in an impound lot? Or maybe he was looking for her driver’s license since the arrest was for failure to identify herself?
If he found drugs or other contraband, though, I think she’d have a good shot at getting any related charges thrown out for an unlawful search.
It seems like this particular cop has encountered enough sovcits before to be especially annoyed by them. Admittedly it probably only takes meeting one of them to do that, but he certainly didn’t put up with much of it. As soon as she trotted out the “I’m not driving, I’m traveling” line, it was all over for her.
I have some mixed feelings on watching this. Is it satisfying to see one of these fools FAFO? Yes, of course. Am I still disturbed by the dialog between the cops and the casual authoritarian overstep? Also yes.
This is watching two obnoxious bullies interacting. You’re not really rooting for one over the other, but there’s still a lot of schadenfreude here.
Edit: Corrected word.
If we’re considering this to be a polite and clear cop then the bar has truly gotten low.
What the hell is that distinction without a difference about anyway?
< searches a bit >
Ah, ok.
SCs say that requiring a license for driving makes traveling without one illegal, and therefore would impinge on their right to travel freely. Simple!
However, the differences between “driving” and “traveling” that SCs agonize over are a pretty moot point, and it betrays a very basic misunderstanding of the wording of the law. What states administer licenses for is not traveling or driving — it’s the operation of a motor vehicle. Take the Michigan Vehicle Code Act of 1949, which describes folks seeking a license as: “applicant for an operator’s license or chauffeur’s license to operate a noncommercial motor vehicle.”
So you can hit the highways of the U.S on foot, on a horse or on a bike, but when you are piloting a two-ton vehicle, the state has an interest in protecting fellow drivers in traffic by require proper licensing.
Source:
I agree that cops unnecessarily cuff people all the time, but maybe there’s more justification for it when the suspects are explicitly saying that they don’t believe that the police have legal authority to detain them.
There are examples out there where judges have denied bail to “sovereign-citizen” criminal defendants who have explicitly said that they don’t recognize the authority of the court, under the assumption that someone who believes that would feel no obligation to show up for their court dates.
But yeah, in cases like this where it’s a nonviolent infraction maybe it would be better to start by putting them in the squad car and only cuffing them if they try to make a run for it.
Never has there been so much faith placed in something that has literally never worked. Even prayer has a chance of “working” through random chance, but sovcit nonsense actively makes a person’s situation worse. Why does anyone still believe in it? Why did they ever?
I mean… you’re right… but I’d rather the cops spend their time arresting sovcits instead of shooting innocent Black Americans… 
Not all SCs are nonviolent.
I guess it would be foolish not to ask, and then find some on the back seat.
I think there needs to be a law that if you plead Sovereign Citizen as a defense and get convicted, your penalty should be automatically doubled for wasting everyone’s time.
Right? And also, I think he said late in the video that this one has had their license suspended 7 times*. SCs must be just a PITA to deal with so often.
*which makes me surprised she got off this time with such a light sentence.
I remember hearing about it in the early '90s, e.g. in Flipside. Someone who worked at (possibly?) the California SoS’s office had received more than a few letters from SovCits (or someones very similar), shared a few examples, & pointed out how frequently the senders specified that they were white.
ETA:
Obligs:
I was wondering about that, as the other cop appears to have a similar accent.
Either that, or they are just gabblers.
“Ah, white, you say? That puts a very different complexion on the matter.”
I’m not sure these guys use the term “sovereign citizen” but their ideology (declaring themselves to have the power of a judge or sheriff) seem similar, and definitely not nonviolent!
That’s the common conception-- that SCs are also white supremacists-- and while the movement’s origins had a lot of overlap with white supremacy, the stereotype has become less accurate.
not all sovereign citizens are white: Gavin Long, a black sovereign citizen, killed three law enforcement officers in Louisiana last year. An increasing number of black Americans are coming to the sovereign movement from the Moorish Science Temple, a black Muslim church that believes African Americans are the descendants of ancient Moors.
Experts believe white nationalism has waned in influence on some elements of the radical right, opening the movement to anyone enthusiastically anti-government and anti-law enforcement.
“This is no longer a white supremacist movement,” said JJ MacNab, an expert on sovereign citizens and militias and the author of the forthcoming book The Seditionists: Inside the Explosive World of Anti-Government Extremism in America.
“There is still racism and bigotry,” she said. “Some of this is situational. If there are two members of your 12-person militia who are black, who are conservatives, military veterans, whatever – they are your brothers. You would kill for them and you would die for them. But two black guys in Ferguson, on the other side of the political spectrum – if there is a hierarchy of hatred, they are as low as you can get, lower than animals.”
In the UK, when they were more goofy and less violent, they were “Freemen on the Land”.
It’s law as cargo cult.
Although in this case, it’s car-travel, rather than car-go.
