1. I still respect you….I hold you even higher up now knowing that you just don’t type away posting things. Not only do you keep me informed about my area but you get out and stand up for what you are passionate for…keep up the good work….

  2. john

    Thank you for taking one for the team. Let the fascists know they won’t have such an easy time making sheep of us all.

  3. Robert Bryant

    I follow you and west Boca news daily and respect what you’re doing but I see no ill intent in these checkpoint stops. The papers on the window and refusal to hand over your license merely ties up additional officers that could possibly be used for the greater good of the checkpoint. I have no problem lowering my window and handing over my license. Perhaps I’m naïve but if the police can remove one drunk driver from the road, perhaps an innocent family won’t be devastated by a drunk that has been waived through a checkpoint because the officers are busy or distracted.

      • Joe

        People need to stop being sheep and allowing tyrants to take away our rights. Amazing that a barber goes through more hours in training then a cop does, and cops are the one that are tasked to uphold the LAW. It just doesn’t make sense now does it? You will win your 1983 claim because you were unlawfully arrested. Looks like the Coral Gables legal advisor needs to send out another memo.

      • Secure Liberty

        Not only ineffective publicity stunts, but also violations of the Fourth Amendment. Thanks for what you are doing.

      • Randall

        If the police were really concerned with drunk drivers they would saturate areas where there are many alcohol establishments and wait for an infraction to make their move.Which is a much more effective and cost effective method to catch drunks than stopping 500 cars without probable cause and hoping to catch a drunk or two.Waukegan , Illinois was handed $478,389.07 from 2008 to 2013 from the state through federal grants to hold DUI checkpoints.During the five years in question, Waukegan police spent $478,000 to nab 890 DUIs at the local checkpoints. That’s just 12 percent of the 7,672 citations issued at those pit stops. The vast bulk of those citations were for burned out taillights, insurance lapses, unbuckled seat belts and license violations.Which comes to the real reason police hold these checkpoints, which is policing for profit.As Warren stated there are more effective methods to catch drunk drivers , but none that provide as much profit for police as these checkpoints provide.So they are basically violating our rights because their bottom line is more important to them than our God given rights.

    • Démian

      It’s a slippery slope Robert…Stopping everyone without suspicion or probable cause is questionable to me. Requiring ID when they don’t suspect you of a crime is also questionable. Once you give them your papers instead of displaying them they have you hostage until they are done with you. Rolling down your window gives them room to claim they smelled something & manufacture probable cause. Answering their questions gives them room to claim they smelled something on your breath, you slurred your speech, or you seemed confused. Now they really can detain you, handcuff & search you for weapons in the name of ‘officer safety.’ Claim they see something & search your vehicle or march a dog around, get the dog to ‘alert,’ and again search your vehicle. Meanwhile if they don’t find anything they can claim that you resisted or spit on them while they were detaining you & arrest you for resisting or assault. How do you prove the officer is lying if he makes any of those claims?

      The only answer in my mind is to keep your mouth shut, window rolled up, display the required info through the window, and answer their questions non verbally.

      Thank you for these signs Warren!

      • Thanks for your kind words. People like Robert either don’t believe police lie or don’t care. As a defense lawyer I have seen bogus claims of “odor of alcoholic beverage,” “slurred speech,” and “impaired motor coordination” many times. Unfortunately many judges don’t care, even when we are able to show these are obvious and blatant lies.

        • Robert Bryant

          Sorry Warren, I thought all opinions were allowed on this thread, even ones you didn’t agree with. I do care, otherwise I wouldn’t have shared mine at all. However, as in all threads, there’s an opportunity to learn and in this one I learned you seem to paint most, if not all officers with the same brush. And, from the blog above, judges too.

          • Robert Bryant


            “Many judges don’t care, even when we are
            able to show these are obvious and blatant lies”.
            Your words, not mine.

  4. Very proud of what you did, takes lot’s of courage, bravery and determination s in these incidents, some can go very wrong. Only been living in Boca since 2011, and your leadership is one we all should follow, stand true to your beliefs and be proud of what you value, shows character, respect and honor. Don’t be bullied!

  5. Robert Bryant

    Time and time again we read in any paper we pick up a disaster that happened in a family that was caused by someone whose common sense has been compromised by alcohol or drugs.
    Can you disagree with that statement? I don’t think many folks can. If that’s the case what would you propose the police do?

    • I agree such stories are often told in the media. They are often inaccurate. But of course it is true that drunk drivers do cause some accidents.

      Your last question assumes that police are the answer to the problem. I don’t think they’re the best answer. You could try reading my book. It’s only 99 cents on Kindle. I talk about policy options at the end.

      • Tom

        When someone gets behind the wheel impaired, it is not an “accident.” While they made have made a mistake in judgment, it doesn’t make what happened an “accident.” If checkpoints save even one life because someone thought twice before driving impaired because they saw the police out conducting a checkpoint, then it’s worth it.

        You deliberately went out, and deliberately refused to cooperate with the police. Even some of your earlier videos say that if the police gives you a an order (and not a request), then you should obey it. But you did not. You are not even heeding your own advice.

        If the officer merely smashed your window or pulled you out of the vehicle just because you did what you did, they would be 100% wrong. But he gave you at least three opportunities (orders) in the video to roll down your window and give him your license. You didn’t. The officers were not wrong here, especially since you refused to follow your own advice and comply with their orders.

        • “If checkpoints save even one life … then it’s worth it.”

          No. You don’t get to violate state law and the Constitution, not even to save lives. No.

          “You deliberately went out, and deliberately refused to cooperate with the police.”

          That’s what civil rights activists do. That’s what Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did. What you’re saying is an insult to their legacy. I’m not claiming I’m them. The stakes are not that high and the issue may not be as important. But it’s the same idea.

          “The officers were not wrong here, especially since you refused to follow your own advice and comply with their orders.”

          The officers were wrong. State law does not require me to hand over my license. I showed my license as required by law. Even if they were right (and they’re clearly wrong), state law says what they accused me of is a non-criminal traffic infraction. You can’t arrest someone for that. They were wrong to arrest me. They were wrong to detain my passenger. They were wrong to search the car. People like Sandra Bland and Eric Garner die because people like you give bad cops a free pass.

          Correct – I did not follow the advice I generally give others. Most people can’t afford to deal with a wrongful arrest and they don’t handle themselves as well with police. I deal with police all the time and I can afford the consequences. My lawyer gives me an amazing discount, though I’m a fool for hiring him.

          • Tom

            You’re a fool because you think that because I disagree with your antics I give police a pass. And that somehow that pass results in the death of individuals. You’re a fool for trying to compare this situation to those situations where the individuals died. Because I believe you acted improperly in ignoring the commands of the officer conducting a checkpoint, which is legal according to the US Supreme Court, that means I somehow condone the actions of officers that have resulted in the death of innocent people. Are your serious?! One has nothing to do with the other. Can a person not believe that officer’s actions are valid in given situations and not others. Or are you saying that just because a person takes law enforcement’s side in a given situation they, as you so mildly put it, give bad cops a free pass. You’re a fool if you think that.

            You’re a fool because you compare yourself to MLK and Rosa Parks just because you call yourself an activist. You may not be calling yourself them, but you are certainly comparing yourself to them or trying to put your name in the same breadth as them. You are not them, not the same and there’s no comparison. This situation not anywhere near to what they did. There is a difference between what they did in fighting against segregation and for equal rights, and you not handing over your license.

            As you wrote: “While I’d like to think of myself as the hero of this story, the real hero is Sergeant Alejandro Escobar. He followed orders when he arrested me. About three hours later he “unarrested” me and gave me a ticket…In a good story the hero learns from experience and grows. I don’t know what happened for sure but I think Sgt. Escobar figured out something was going on and made an effort to understand what I was doing and why. In the end he went against his department’s policy, against his orders, and only issued me a ticket.”

            In a post below you wrote: “It’s not really the cop’s fault. He was following orders. He probably hadn’t thought the orders through that carefully before the encounter started. When he put some thought into it, he did closer to the right thing at the end.”

            How is it that you can say the officer was the hero and just following orders, and that’s okay. But I comment that I believe that you wrong in this situation and the officers acted lawfully, and because my belief contradicts with yours, I am a fool. Because of my opinion, you make unnecessary, spiteful and rude remarks about my comments rather than engage in a meaningful comment or post.

            The great activists of our time were not great just because the fought against what they thought was injustice or inequality. They were great because as strongly as they held on to their beliefs and their position, they were always listening, not ignoring and not being spiteful or rude, to the other who held opposite beliefs and positions.

            No matter how good, just and right you are, you will never be in held in the esteem that such great activists like MLK and Rosa Parks are held if you refuse to understand or care about the positions of those in opposition to yours. That’s what made them great. Unfortunately, you are not them.

  6. bob

    I dare this DUI-JERK to drive through our BSO checkpoint next weekend…..
    We’ll toss him in jail just for failure to comply!!

    • Joe

      WOW, why do you take Mr. Redlichs actions so personally? If you are a cop like you say, I believe you need to reevaluate what your purpose is and maybe rethink the oath you took when you became a cop. It’s sad that most cops like you take the us against the citizens stance. What’s up with all the hate?

    • Impersonating an LEO is a felony offense in every state I can think of. Also, for an LEO to make threats against the People is criminal. You’re kinda screwed anyway you look at it.

  7. ThisGuyIsAloser

    YOU ARE A LOSER. These checkpoints are made to make sure no one is driving drunk. Why make it into some game with police? Why not give them your lisence? What’s the big deal? If you didn’t do anything wrong then you shouldn’t have anything to hide. If I was a cop and someone didn’t hand me there license I would think that person is hiding something. Now your going to sue because you have nerve damage? You are a loser.

    • Bob

      The big deal is that rights are important. This isn’t the USSR. We should not be required to hand over our ID at random checkpoints. Police on patrol rarely do anything good, for the most part they just collect revenue for the government, arrest and beat on blacks for victimless crimes, and go crazy when their fragile egos are in any way disrespected like roid rage psychos, whether their victims are breaking the law or not. I’m more afraid of police than drunks. The problem is with police culture. Gone are the days of protect and serve, here are the days of us vs them. The more we as citizens challenge the police, the more we can begin to right the ship. Warren is willing to risk his liberty to protect your rights. He isn’t a loser, he’s a hero.

      • Rudy

        “Police on patrol rarely do anything good” ??? If tomorrow every police officer decided to take the day off what do you think would happen. You throw out a lot of garbage thoughts on policing. Do some ride a longs and educate yourself. Walk around some neighborhoods in south Florida and tell me you fear the police more than street criminals.

        • Bob’s points are the opposite of garbage in fact. Based on his commentary I would say he’s either studied the criminal justice system, or happens to be particularly gifted at sorting fact from fiction in the media. In either case, I would be willing to bet that it isn’t the presence of a policing apparatus that prevents you personally from going out and robbing people; it is your upbringing; your culture; and the fact that others would retaliate that accounts for your lawful behavior. In short, what you claim to be the result of policing- social order, and peace- is actually more the result of informal social controls (look up the term, you’ll learn something worth knowing) than policing could ever hope to achieve. That is why, even if policing were gone tomorrow, you still wouldn’t be breaking into your neighbor’s home in a ski mask. When you credit policing with the great feat of social order, you limit how much else you can ask of them. When you credit policing with the great feat of social order, you view their deeds through rose-colored glasses. Both cases result in fertile grounds for corruption and bad acts.

  8. Jack

    Friends of mine tried that in north palm a few nights ago and ended up in the hospital
    You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride !

    • YourTaxDollarsAtWork

      Hopefully thay have already hired Mr. Redlich to represent them in the DUI case, sue the cops under 42 USC 1983, and filed a criminal complaiint under 18 USC 242.

  9. Louis

    The cop had EVERY opportunity to read every bit of the information on his license through the window – why did he turn this into an issue? Was it to CHILL other citizens from invoking their rights to the maximum ?

    Please arrange to have/acquire a video recording of the entire court process – put ads on it and throw it up on youtube – I definitely want to watch every second. — with your own commentary as well.

    This seems like an important precedent-in-the-making.

    Great job.

    • It’s not really the cop’s fault. He was following orders. He probably hadn’t thought the orders through that carefully before the encounter started. When he put some thought into it, he did closer to the right thing at the end.

        • I’m not putting this in the same category as the Gestapo. The typical police officer here has a high school diploma. They get little or no training to enable them to distinguish whether an order is lawful or not.

          In this case the city attorney, the police chief, and the department’s outside legal advisor all told him the order was lawful. It’s very impressive that Sgt. Escobar overcame that. Maybe he’s better educated than average, or just smarter than your average cop.

    • Not sure if we will get video of court proceedings. The initial case will be in Miami-Dade traffic court. We will try to record that. The federal proceedings will be mostly on paper. I don’t think there’ll be much to record there.

      • Question

        What is your view on Pennsylvania v. Mimms? Could an Officer invoke this case law to order the driver from the vehicle at a checkpoint?

        • No. Mimms was not a checkpoint case. It was a traffic stop. Checkpoints are supposed to be very limited and police are supposed to have written guidelines and follow them.

          I can’t say they would never be able to order a driver from the vehicle in a checkpoint, but it would be very unusual.

  10. Mr. Redlich…..I am an avid follower of yours. Previous to your arrest/ticket shown here, there was the Jeff Gray/Honoryouroath youtube videos wherein Mr. Grey goes thru the checkpoint with your flyer, his drivers license, proof of insurance, in a clear plastic bag on the outside of his window, with the window up.

    Can you compare and contrast that so called presentation, vs the simple holding of the drivers license up the window. The law enforecement officers seem to be dumbfounded when all the required documents were in the clear plastic bag outside the window, Would the officer you encountered even have given you a ticket that night, much less taken you down to the station house for possible arrest, before changing his mind?

    Thanks for any response.

    • I don’t like hanging anything out the window. It could be an equipment violation. It’s unnecessary. They don’t have any right to hold the license in their hand.

      These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

      Thanks for your kind words.

        • “give them an inch and they will take a mile.”

          That is exactly what’s going on here. The Supreme Court gave them an inch in Michigan v Sitz (1990) and they’ve been stretching that for miles and miles ever since. In Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) the Court put some limits and police are ignoring those limits everywhere.

  11. paul

    My experiences have a very similar perspective from here is that the PBSO (and probably other jurisdictions have a very loose interpretation of the 4th Amendment (especially cause for seizures and stops). Back in college, my political science professor told us a lesson I will never forget: “The law isn’t what’s in the Constitution. The law is what the cop on the block says it is.”

  12. To obtain and keep liberty and freedom, you must sacrifice. Our founding fathers knew this well. Now, the majority allow “authority” to trod over them with no regard as to constitutionality of their actions. We are a country of laws, however, if we make enough laws, we can all be criminals.

    • Good question. The problem with this is we could add all kinds of things to the flyer and then it becomes unreadable.

      One Florida lawyer suggested I add language telling the officer that the encounter is being recorded.

      I’d like to add language telling the officer to press tickets up against the window so the driver can take a picture and sign digitally under the federal E-Sign Act (and have done so in some states).

      But if you add everything that you might add it’s a mess.

      Really just the first three phrases (I remain silent, etc.) are all that’s really necessary.

  13. Troy Gardner

    Believe it or not but the police all across America have the power to make things better for themselves and the tension between police and public by simply reading the U.S. Constitution, becoming familiar with it, and defending it as they have already taken an oath to do so. Also by simply affirming that the same laws they enforce apply to them as well.

  14. Debra Prisk

    your ticket says Failure to show Driver’s License. You were showing the DL along with your sign the whole time. I hope you clean their clocks! in court. And Thank you for doing this……

  15. I wonder if the cop will even show up in court to testify.

    You are a hero in your own right, showing the American People how to protect themselves from government over-reach which appears to be running rampant throughout the USA.

    I hope you will show us a copy of your complaint when you file it with the courts.

    Keep up the great work you are doing.

  16. J.D.Cockrell

    One of my biggest concerns is civil forfeiture during a checkpoint or traffic stop. Google up a few articles on it, in a nutshell it allows the police to seize anything in your vehicle or the vehicle itself, especially if you are carrying cash, and forces you to prove that you didn’t obtain said article/cash through illegal means. Read that again, it forces you to prove your innocence, not the legal system to prove your quilt. These seized assets are then kept and used solely by the police department that stole them from you. Most people don’t have the time, money, or legal help to fight these seizures and simply walk away and forfeit their rights and property. If you don’t allow them access to your vehicle this will decrease the chances of civil forfeiture.

      • Warren, I recently withdrew a very large (for me) sum of cash (over 6 figures) from my local bank. I called them in advance to make sure they had the funds. It took them a week to obtain them. When I arrived to collect the cash, I was met with several very personal questions – where do I work, what was the purpose of the withdrawal, was I being coerced.

        I told the teller I didn’t want to answer those questions, to which she said the Fed mandates that the questions be answered. Fed? I asked… “Federal Reserve Bank”. The questions, and my answers to them weren’t even going to the federal government.

        Prior to my withdrawal, I did a little more research on the subject of large cash withdrawals. I found a recent memo, by the Justice Department, recommending that tellers notify local police departments for any cash withdrawals of more than $5k.


        Tie that together with the very real threat of civil asset forfeiture, and it sure started to smell like a setup.

        I had a retired police detective come with me, just to make sure any unexpected police encounters would receive the “fellow brother in blue” treatment.

  17. A.M

    THANK YOU!!! For all that you do, I recently moved out of west boca up to north Georgia, however i had spent most of my life there and really do appreciate your paper but after reading this artical found a huge amount of respect for you, again THANK YOU!!! And best wishes and hopes of further success in your future

  18. Ben

    Well done sir! If I had the money to replace a broken window a.s.a.p. then I would’ve gone all the way. You, sir, are part of the few who not only talks the talk but also walks the walk too! 😀

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor freedom.” – Benjamin Franklin

    “Were rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

    An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442.

    What evidence do they have to prove that the constitution and laws apply and that they have any jurisdiction to begin with? Isn’t the purpose of government, aka the courts, to protect and maintain an individual’s rights? Life, freedom, property, ect.? So who’s rights have you violated that gave them the jurisdiction (authority) over you to force you out of your car?

    “The injury alleged MUST be, for example, “DISTINCT and PALABLE,”…and not “abstract” or “conjectural” or “hypothetical,”…The injury must be “fairly” traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be “likely” to follow from a favorable decision.” Allen vs. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)(citations omitted)(emphasis added)

    “It is a fundamental principle of law that no person be adjudged guilty of a crime until the state has shown that a crime has been committed. The state therefore must show that a harm has been suffered of the type contemplated by the charges (for example, a death in the case of a murder charge or a loss of property in the case of a theft charge), and that such harm was incurred due to the criminal agency of another. Thus, it is sufficient if the elements of the underlying crime are proven rather than those of the particular degree or variation of that crime which may be charged.” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823,825 (Fla. 1976).

    Since this will be a civil procedure…
    §48.193 Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state (6) Causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury, either.

    Ask them if this “valid cause of action” is in the nature of a contract dispute or a tort?
    §48.193(7) Breaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.

    Just another angle I found that might be useful. Good luck!

    • While I agree philosophically with what you say, I don’t think it works in our court system. On the window, we actually expected it to be broken. We chose that particular car because of the three cars we had, that one had the cheapest windows to replace and I would have paid for it. But the car was quirky, the owner was outside filming, and we didn’t realize the doors were unlocked.

      There really isn’t much to gain from a legal standpoint by having the window smashed in. You could make an argument for “excessive force” (there’s a case on that – Deville v. Marcantel), but that’s not the issue we were really going for.

      • Ben

        Actually it does work. Check out marcstevens.net It’s more like damage control. The doors were unlocked the whole time! LOL! 😀 Better my buddies car than mine! LOL! I know Deville vs. Marcantel & Graham vs. Conner & Kingsley vs. Hendrickson &, unfortunately, many, many more. But I understand. Again good luck, thanks for the respond, and I would love to here the outcome of this.

  19. This “DUI Checkpoint” activism is all about protecting citizens CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS from illegal actions (by law enforcement and especially GOVERNMENT), deliberate trampling and unintentional erosion through lazy, uninformed misuse of state and police powers.

    Many commentators get that, some don’t and their illogical, non-sequitur posts reveal their little brains failure to comprehend the little and bigger issues at stake.

  20. In my state you have to allow physical handling of license, reg., and insurance. I imagine just having those available in an easy to take envelope outside the window would be OK.

    • You should talk to a local lawyer. In my opinion the Fourth Amendment is superior to any state statute. Why do they need to hold it in their hands? I’ve had that conversation with many police officers and prosecutors and none of them has been able to answer that.

      • Tom McCormack

        It’s the same reason they like to smear their hands over your car
        at the checkpoint. Alpha-male superiority tactics. Control.Take that
        away from them and watch them cry.

  21. CT_Yankee

    When headed towards a checkpoint if bear spray or mace was sprayed very sparingly into the wheel wells, and perhaps across the rear bumper bottom, that might take care of the dogs pawing at the car issue. It might also assist others in the near term, as the sensitive noses might not detect revenue for a while.

    An MP3 of high frequency sweeps (dog whistles) a few seconds apart left on the radio might be worth listening to at stops, even if humans can not hear it. The name of the MP3 file should not stand out.

  22. Good Canadian Kid

    I find it interesting that Israel Reyes used Merriam-Webster’s third definition for “present” in his legal analysis rather than the first (i.e. the most common usage) definition:
    1. a (1) : to bring or introduce into the presence of someone especially
    of superior rank or status (2) : to introduce socially
    b : to bring (as a play) before the public

    “…introduce into the presence of…”

    On a different note, when someone brings up the “if a DUI checkpoint saves just one life” argument I find it useful to point out that saturation patrols use fewer police resources to catch more impaired drivers, and most importantly catch a higher percentage of severely impaired drivers than random checkpoints. There are also no fourth amendment issues with saturation patrols.

    • Those who make the claim “it’s for the children…” or “if just one life saved…” I like to toss back at them, “Where does it stop?” Imagine how many children we could save from abuse, how many wives wouldn’t be beat by their boyfriends/husbands, how many crimes could be stopped if only… we had a cop in every home. Or a camera in every room of the house. How many children could be saved. If only we had a superior surveillance state to monitor everyone, every hour of every day, no matter where they are.

      Even the most ardent statists object to that level of privacy invasion. Once you make it clear that ‘one life saved’ argument fails under these scenarios, it’s somewhat easier to convey why violating ANY privacy is also just as offensive.

  23. Charles Martel

    What was the justification for the “inventory” of your car? That obviously was a search.

    Was it that they “arrested” you before they “un-arrested” you? It sure seems like it can be, and perhaps was, used as an attempt to circumvent 4th Amendment protections.

  24. Shannon

    Seems like a pedantic and tenuous argument that “submit on demand” does not mean what it means. Good luck, but I personally think you’ve got a tough case to make.

    • Yes, if you only look at one of the four words used in the statute (exhibit, present, submit and display) then you would almost have a point. Lawyers are trained to read the whole statute and not just pick out the words they like the most. Some lawyers even follow that training.

      Even submit does not clearly mean you have to hand it over.

    • The big question is where is the search performed: border, checkpoint or traffic stop then what probable cause was verbally given to make a search.

      If they ask, and you deny then they search then it will make any gains obtainable “fruit of the poisonous tree”. The issue is to find probable cause through either a dog scent search or through observation.

      The search had nothing going for it and it should be included as one of the constitutional violations in the upcoming lawsuit. I believe the search could also receive the same treatment as the arrest for not passing over the driver’s license…. the prayer for relief section is where the good juicy bits can reside.

  25. Good Canadian Kid

    The problem with tossing it back in their face is it puts them in a defensive position and it’s human nature to defend your position when attacked. The most common response is to simply dismiss your point as a logical fallacy, “24/7 full surveillance is ridiculous, checkpoints are reasonable — they are not the same thing”. Showing them that there is a better way to accomplish the stated goal without disparaging their position avoids that, “saturation patrols work better at getting drunks off the road than random checkpoints”.

  26. Thank you for what your doing Warren. are there any other groups, people, or organizations around the country doing the kind of actions you do? and have the been successful or not? and if I wanted to look for that kind of statute in my state where would I look? just to see if that kind of thing could be done in other places? So if I down loaded the state flyer I could just change my state statute for yours. maybe someone could do one for all 50 states and post a link? Thanks again Warren hope you clean their clocks and set em straight.

    • I have not seen other groups doing this the way I do it. I’d love to see more.

      I think I’m likely to win my case, at least to some extent. Once we have strong federal case law on our side, I am hopeful that more people will do it.

      What state are you in?

        • 1. The traffic court judge found me guilty and I’m appealing. The appeal process just started and will take at least a few months.

          2. I filed a federal lawsuit on January 1. That will take several months, possibly over a year.

          • Joe

            Just curious as to what the traffic court judge said to justify him finding you guilty?

            I’ve always said that the real judges are found in the appeals process. The first line judges like the one that found you guilty are there to teach the people a lesson (too control) because they know most people wont file an appeal. The cops, prosecutors and judges all work together and they will screw the people over because they know they can get away with it. If they found you not guilty, imagine how many people would do exactly what you did.

            They (the system) are afraid of losing control of the people, so they colluded in finding you guilty before you ever stepped into that court room. This I believe 100%

    • I withdrew the federal case. The state case is still going. I was found guilty in traffic court and am appealing that result to the Circuit Court. We are now waiting for a decision on that appeal. Most such appeals are denied, usually without any explanation (it’s called “per curiam affirmed”).

Leave a Reply