Transportation administrative notice Tennessee is a righteous cause that undoes a security breach against the people.
And that is their right to be free “from unreasonable searches and seizures” and to be “ secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions,” article 1, section 7 in the state constitution.
By David Tulis / 92.7 NoogaRadio
Cars and trucks are a form of chattel property, no different than washing machines, desktop computers or garage workshop tools such as a vise or a circular saw. Use of a car to get from Point A to Point B — from Soddy-Daisy where I live to Ooltewah where we have friends — is not subject to regulation, taxation or requirements for permission.
Unless.
Unless that trip is commercial, unless it is subject to contract, hiring, financial agreement, engagement for consideration or pay. If it is a trip for profit, in commerce, for gain, it is regulable and taxable. Why? It is commerce. The selling and buying of the service of taking goods or people for hire from Point A to Point B.
For Chattanooga police chief David Roddy (serving Mayor Andy Berke) and for Sheriff Jim Hammond (serving the people of Hamilton County) to arrest people for being on the road without a driver license, proof of insurance or registration of car as motor vehicle is a breach of the people’s article 1, section 7 rights.
The remedy?
Transportation administrative notice, served on City of Chattanooga Feb. 20 and Sheriff Hammond March 1, as well as Gov. Haslam, safety commissioner David Purkey and others.
Notice clarifies for these law enforcers the limits of the law they enforce at Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 55 and under U.S.C. § Title 49, the state and federal transportation code respectively.
“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.” Article 1, section 7
As they have been notified, they cannot under the doctrine of notice act as they have previously.
A reform is obligatory.
It is impossible to conceive of a “free state” (article 1, section 12), protecting the interests of all “free people” (article 1, section 24) without a proposed — and very simple — reform that brings officials to a proper respect of the people’s rights.
Chief Roddy, Sheriff Hammond et al are required to reform traffic stop protocol and not touch, seize or arrest any private citizen on the highway under the pretext of that person’s being a commercial user.
Obedience to the commercial scope of Title 55 will bring about a new question when an officer stops a motorist for what appears to him a clear cause of danger for other members of the public (weaving in traffic, excessive speed, tailgating).
“Sir [or, Ma’am], are you using the road today in a for-profit, for-hire or commercial purpose?” If the answer is, “Yes, sir,” the cop has authority to ask for driver license, proof of insurance and registration. If the answer is “Nossir,” the cop understands he lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and lets the person go.
Sheriff and police departments that are under TAN act in bad faith if they do not make this reform. They are effectively violating the people’s rights, knowingly and intentionally, subjecting the officer and the municipality to tort litigation for abuse of power under color of law.
Tennesseans are free to travel about and to be “secure in their persons, *** papers and possessions” and cannot be stopped along the public right of way unless a citizen or an officer has seen that person commit a crime under the criminal code in Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 39.
Given the limits on police authority, the best way to defend your rights at a traffic stop is to ask, “What crime did you see me commit? Do you have a warrant for my arrest? Do you have a warrant to stop and search this automobile?”
He’d rather you NOT ask about crimes in Title 39. He wants to focus on Title 55, and make claims about alleged infractions you might have committed of the commercial statute.
“License? What are you talking about? What’s a license? Not sure what you mean by that. Registration? Registration of what? Register with whom? I’m sorry, what are you asking for?”
The goal is for the cop to make explicit demands and to cite his authority. If you cautious about your rights and aware of the limits of his authority, you must base your defense on due process. You have rights to due process the officer refuses to recognize. And if you are under arrest, you must place 100 percent of the burden upon him. Anything you say about yourself will be used against you in court. If you give your name as he is preparing charges, he will run your name and come up with a version of it in his database and say, “Oh, you have a suspended license.” or, “Sir, you are driving on a revoked license” or what have you.
Support this blog and my 1 – 3 p.m. weekday show on 92.7 NoogaRadio by going to GoFundMe and making a free gift.
How residents should push back vs. police
