41 votes

Wife got pulled out of the car over a malfunctioning brake light.

On New Years day my wife was subjected to, what my limited legal knowledge tells me, a transgression against her rights as a human. On the plus side, she made an instant conversion to "conspiracy-nut" Libertarianism. She would like to give the "system" as hard a time as possible without getting slapped with contempt of court, lol. I would like to begin with gaining a little knowledge from the DP members who have been successful at fighting off the badge-wielding mafia. I'll try to give as much detail as I can.

She got the infamous red/blue lights in her rearview on New years night on the way TO the bar. The officer pulled out from a side road less than half of a block before her destination, so she pulled into the parking lot, a well lighted area, and parked, remaining in the vehicle. (The officer accused her of evading, lol)...

...She provided all the necessary info to the officer through a small opening in her window (it's cold out, and thugs sporting guns, tazers and gang colors are scary!!!). The officer did not like this one bit, and instructed her, and the passengers to roll the windows all the way down. I'm not fully versed in the whole request/demand/order differentiation legalese. She replied," No, sir. I'd rather not."The officer then asked why she refused. to which she replied,"Sir, I simply do not want to, and I don't think the law requires me to."....

... The officer then put's his arm in the window opening, unlocks the door, opens it, and physically takes her phone away. (she was attempting to start recording the incident on her phone.) Needless to say, this has never happened to her before, so she had an emotional break-down: She started crying and started repeating over and over,"You are violating my rights. This isn't legal."...

... The officer continued to stand in front of the door he opened until his buddies showed up(what happened to performing a "terry-frisk" for his own safety? guess he didn't think she was all that dangerous, huh?), at which point he ordered/requested/demanded that she get out of the car. To which she replied,"I'm afraid to. You just broke the law and violated my rights." So, two of them physically removed her, and cuffed her. She then started asking,"what are you doing? What crime did I commit?"...

... One of the officers that arrived later for "back-up" happened to be a female. This female officer asked if she had any weapons on her. She replied,"No. I have a pocket knife in my coat pocket." The female officer then commenced to search her person for "illegal substences", of course, and she replied,"I don't consent". The officer then said,"don't consent to what?", and continued searching her anyway. She replied,"I don't consent to you touching me in any way."(Maybe she should've used the magic word "search"? IDK)...

... After, IMO, illegal search that found nothing, they told her that they would uncuff her if she would cooperate.(ahh, that good- ol' cooperation that actually fits the dictionary definition of subordination.*scratches head*)So they uncuffed her and made her kiss the breathalyzer and and perform the familiar circus clown skit. No DUI was issued, so she must've passed, right?...

... The original officer gave her a seatbelt citation (at night? on private property? in a parking stall? how could he tell that she hadn't removed it upon parking?), and told her that he was "doing her a favor" and to go have fun in the bar.

That's the story, as I understand it. Could you guys help with the learning process, please? Any links to youtube videos, legal resources that pertain, and websites akin to "flexyourrights.org", and help get us started on all the paperwork we can file to "tie-up" the system would be greatly appreciated.

She has filed to get the official police report from the local police department. There were no dash cams present on any of the patrol cars. There are no useful recordings from her or her passengers' phones. No DUI or public intoxication charges or citations. Only a $10 seat-belt ticket, served with a side of rights trampling and mental abuse.

Anyone should feel free to post their own rants, and provide links to idea they haven't personally tested in court but we(namely she) are particularly interested in comments from those who have successfully navigated the system in similar scenarios, or have legal experience. She now believes that the non-aggression principle in gov't is the way to go, but(for obvious reasons) is still feeling hopeless and scared to death of standing her ground and "flexing her legal muscle" for her first time.

She's nervous, but anxious to get her feet wet. I am Humbly requesting items that will help us gain the knowledge necessary to give them as much hassle as legally possible, as well as items that can increase her confidence and will refute the,"What if this is all conspiracy theory B.S. and the judge puts me in jail" idea.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Did she get his name and

Did she get his name and badge number. I'd file a report against him. It most likely will do nothing to him for now but it will go in the record and when more instances are reported it will show a pattern of his behavior which may eventually get him out of a position he's obviously too immature to handle.

I was pulled over once on a highway and I exited the highway when I was being pulled over there was no shoulder and I did it for the officers safety. He didnt like that very much apparently. He also told me to give him my iced tea bottle so he could see if there was alcohol in it. The reason I was pulled over was for flicking a ciggarette out the window. It was actually a black n mild (which take about 15-20 minutes to smoke) i still had it and it was almost gone so he couldn't ticket me for littering. So he decided to give me a speeding ticket. 74 in a 65 which the court clerk found hilarious. He also tried to give me a seatbelt ticket but I firmly told him I took it off to reach the glove box and he let that go.

Moral of the story is a lot of cops suck at protecting and serving and only join for the authority it grants them. These are the ones most people come across and they give cops a bad name. I'm glad your wife's came around to our way of thinking. It usually doesn't occur until it happens to you which is a shame but the only way to get rid of these cops and this behavior is to report it. Let him and the rest of them know you won't stand for that behavior. They work for us, and law abiding citizens shouldn't have to fear the police.

Anyone got any links for the

Anyone got any links for the guy that hands the police and judges a "price sheet" and bills them for every "lawful order"? I saw something like this a few days ago on a thread that was removed by the OP, and I would like to add it to the "viewing list".

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Egomaniac or Control Freak

Too many cops are egomaniacs and/or control freaks.
When someone remotely tries to exercise their "rights" that's usually enough to send them over the edge.
It's very sad to see when these things happens in the land that promotes personal "freedumbs" and with many young men and women sacrificing their lives for these false "freedumbs"
Most cops are really dumb...once I got a ticket, I told the officer that cops are dumb...He wrote on the back of the ticket what I had said..."He said cops are DUM"...Yeah, he misspelled "DUMB"
What a dumbass...both of these cops are.
I miss Andy & Barney, most cops today are more like Jack-booted thungs/Nazis.

stay out of bars

Nothing but trouble there.


It's probably real easy to be

It's probably real easy to be locked up for a $10 ticket, as sad as that may be.

That's what makes all of these links you guys are providing so very important.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Some Libertarians Are Born

The state makes the rest.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

lol. I like that one. Maybe I

lol. I like that one.

Maybe I should send the PD a thank you gift. I've been working on her for a while, and they done what I have been trying to do for 4 years in 20 minutes!!!

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

She Scared the Officer

It's obvious that she scared the officer.

First, how many passengers were there and who were they? She pulled off the road as if she were a single woman without passengers.

The officer was outnumbered.

From his point of view, she raised all kinds of red flags indicating guilt. This did not justify his violating her rights, but it justified his suspicion. Officers rely on their instincts to survive.

Were the passengers wearing seatbelts? She is not obligated to state whether she was or wasn't, they are obligated to prove she wasn't, although the judge will likely assume the officer is truthful (for legal reasons, and because they know each other), however, if the excuse was the taillight, then it wasn't the seatbelt, and he shouldn't be allowed to claim it was. (When did you notice she wasn't wearing a seatbelt?)

Good luck (sincerely).

I was unjustly pulled over, once, at two in the morning, for going through a red light (it was still amber, but a curve in the road hid that from the officer). I could tell the officer relaxed as soon as we spoke and he could evaluate my demeanor (if he hadn't already started writing, I think he'd have dropped it). I was coming home from work, not leaving a bar, which helped.

I didn't fight it, which I regret, even though it was in 1976! (It's quite possible the officer would not have shown up.) I have only been pulled over once since then, for a missing registration sticker (someone stole it, "they do it all the time" the nice officer, said, and sent me on my way).

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Feel free to read my original story...

"It's obvious that she scared the officer."

How so? Should refusing to roll down your window so the officer can smell your breath be considered an act of terrorism? Do violent people normally cower in fear of thugs before they attack? I'm not being a smart ass. I would like to know why you think the officer's "fear" was obvious. I would also like to know how you determined that she was hiding something, INSTEAD OF asserting her rights as a respectable human being. Remember, there was NO DUI issued after the breathalyzer AND the circus act performance. Got any idea what she might have been hiding?

.... There a couple other mistakes in your post. Allow me to eliminate some of the confusion.

She was "pulled over" AS SHE WAS ENTERING the parking lot to the bar, NOT leaving.

The officer went all "Chairman Mao" on her because she answered his request/demand/order with a polite, but firm,"No sir. I'm not required to roll my window all of the way down." Even if he WANTED to smell her breath to check for alcohol, under the fifth amendment, she is in no way obligated to "help the officer investigate" herself. He pulled her for a faulty light. Once she properly identified herself, he has all of the evidence he needs to pursue THAT SPECIFIC INFRACTION. I know without a doubt that what he done was illegal in the truest sense of the word.

As far as h er "obviously" scaring him, things like this are based on REASONABLE suspicion. A person that has REASONABLE suspicion that he is in danger doesn't insert his arm into a small crack in the window, unlock a stranger's door, stand in the way of the door, and commence to stealing that stranger's private property, in this case, her cellphone. These are NOT things that a person with REASONABLE suspicion of danger does. This is what a person with mental problems that inhibit their reason might do, and something that sane person would do to intimidate another. I don't think it's REASONABLE to assume that person who will invade another's "bubble", commandeer their personal property, stand within arm's reach of that person while waiting for back up, and still claim that his fear was justified....

...You can't logically use a person's actions to justify their fear. That would be confusing cause with effect. Even if you COULD, the officers actions don't correlate with the emotion "fear" in any way.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Brake Light?

So he didn't mention the brake light or give her any kind of citation for that?

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

He mentioned it when she

He mentioned it when she asked,"why did you pull me?"

But, yes, he "let her slide" on that....because he was "doing her a favor"(His words, not mine)

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Funny thing is, how would he

Funny thing is, how would he know about the brake light unless she hit the brakes.... so she could turn in to the parking lot?

She didn't have very far to go, so it's impossible for any legitimate accusations of "evading". But now that I think about it, it's possible that he turned on the blue-n-reds AS SHE WAS PULLING INTO THE PARKING LOT.

..I'll have to ask her during my lunch break.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."


was wifey just sheep sheep sheepling along until it was her time to get screwed over?

People who are zombies right up until "that moment" make for the worst activists. They will be driven emotionally and do everything wrong. It's like they will do the job of the enemy without being on the payroll.

When somebody gets screwed over, I tell them "where were you when (this happened to everybody else)?" and then remind them to sit down and shut up like they already sat down and shut up before and just pay attention to sports and Beiber like they where doing before.

We can do without their mistakes and emotionalism which, unchecked, will end up making us just like the enemy.


They came for the Gun owners,and I did nothing. Then they came for the truthers,and I did nothing.Then they came for ME the one with the broken brake light, and there was no one left to do anything.

nah, she wasn't a flaming

nah, she wasn't a flaming statist before this. I wouldn't have married her in that case, lol.

She just thought that I'm too extreme at times. She fully expected the officer to politely accept that she didn't want to roll down the window... And she also expected that the cops would not search her without consent. The law is screwed up, but the cops wouldn't intentionally break the law, right? RIGHT!?!?!?

No, honey, why would they need legal immunity if they followed the law?

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Thanks to all for

Thanks to all for posting!!!

I tried thanking everyone individually, but decided on the shot-gun approach!!

Anyone know how subscribe to a post so I can tell when a new post is added. I don't want anyone's contribution to get "buried" by accident.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

You asked...

"who have been successful at fighting off the badge-wielding mafia?"

If you haven't yet seen them, please check out 4409 video's... he battles them all head on...



Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

thanks. I'll add that to the

thanks. I'll add that to the viewing list.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Did you watch Carl Miller yet?

Did ya? Huh? Didja, didja, didja?
Seriously, I have been searching for nearly a decade now to find what is in Carl's videos.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Haven't got the chance yet, hun.

Had a full house last night..... And now I gotta address the fiscal cliff issue and feed the poor so they don't have to pawn their x-boxes and flat screens, LMAO!!!

The wife and I are definitely going to watch it a few times through, starting this evening after work. I plan on watching ALLLLLLLLL of the links posted.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Hey, thanks for the Carl Miller stuff !!!

I don't know if it was you or someone else who posted the links, but I read his 77-page paper and it was eye opening.

I never really "got" Artile 6, Section 2 of the Constitution, but WOW!

I do have 3 reservations about Carl's writing. Maybe you or someone else who has studied his stuff can answer:

(1) Some of his statute references have nothing to do with what he says they are about. One example is 5 USC 556(d) where he talks about losing jurisdiction. That section says nothing about that and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the courts. What gives?

(2) His material is constitutionally-based, yet is based on a theory. Since we all know American judges are corrupt as hell, do the judges uphold this argument consistently? Is it hit-or-miss? Does anybody know?

(3) Carl claims a 90%+ winning rate. Does provide any evidence of this?

I really DO like his stuff. Hell, I ***LOVE*** his stuff -- just a little leery in light of the corruption out there.


You're ahead of me!

Keep reading, then tell me, OK? lol!
What he said that I considered pretty persuasive was that he got Kevorkian off. I remember that, Kevorkian was "Dr. Death" and VILIFIED by the media, sure to go to prison, no one in "polite society" could believe what he was doing (according to the media, any way) then all the sudden he was a free man. All very quiet, I never really knew what happened. But your questions and reservations are more than valid. No one has really "paved the way" so clearly that it resounded throughout the courts.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

All good questions!!!

... And that is the problem. None of us ever get to be in the court room to watch one of these legal bad-asses tie the judges hands up, so we all have the, "it SHOULD work, but does it REALLY work" question. This is where the wife is, right now.

I wish I had some videos of someone like Mr. Miller in action. Would make for good multi-media material for my "ignorance is no excuse high school class".

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

That Was Cool

But the cops where I live make up bogus excuses to detain you even if you haven't done anything. They claim stuff like they had a call to stop a car that matches your description etc and you have no way to prove they didn't.


Record yourself telling the story for documentation

Record yourself telling the story for later while you still remember it. Write down the whole story while its still fresh. I'm no legal expert but it seems this would help with remembering evidence on how unethical this was. Not sure if this would effect litigation, but wondering if contacting the local news media about this or writing a letter to the editor could really draw some exposure. Here's a side-thought, make a min-doc about it and release it after everything is finished. Not sure if your even going down that road, but good luck with everything and have fun with it. It would still feel good to let them know regardless of who wins, what was done is immoral and you can't treat human beings like that. Those who do are thugs hiding behind badges.

kind people rock

Get the friends to share their story as well

They can confirm what your wife has said. (This was a great idea, jamesdenham1)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

more testimonies = more evidence

for sure

kind people rock

Here is my story of abuse....

Without getting into all the details, I was arrested by a cop who got angry because I accidently splashed his pants leg when I stepped in a puddle as I walked by him. I didn't even know I did it (it was a crowded street) until he grabbed me from behind. I apologized repeatedly, but that wasn't good enough. He took me off the street into an closed bar, while his partner prevented my friends from following us inside. The cop dumped a cup of beer on my head, then threw me on the ground and began choking me. He was trying to incite me, but I just laid on the ground with my hands above my head. He then picked me up, handcuffed me, and took me to jail. I was charged with public intoxication (no breathalizer or blood test done, but I reeked of the beer he dumped on me), resisting arrest, and criminal damage to property. When it came time for court, I plead not guilty. The cop didn't even show up to court and the whole thing was thrown out by the judge. This happened a long time ago when I was a student with literally no money, but I still wish to this day that I had been able to file a lawsuit against the guy. The sad thing is that fighting such abuse costs the abused money, and costs the cops nothing personally. They have the power to make you spend the night in jail (or worse), even if the whole thing is bogus.

What the cop did to you was a

What the cop did to you was a clear violation of established law. He would be personally liable and would not be protected by qualified immunity, IMO.


You can sue personally and make him pay.

When the cost of repression exceeds the profits repression ends.

Carl miller talks about the details.

Free includes debt-free!