DISCLAIMER
I fully support law enforcement, and I appreciate the service they provide to the community. I fully respect every man and woman in law enforcement. However, it is also very important to me that the men and women in law enforcement respect me and my rights as an individual, as well as the rights of every American. I have been called to share the truth with people about our rights as individuals living in a free state and country regarding traffic and law enforcement.
-
1. Would you allow your deputies to use their emergency lights and sirens for a routine traffic stop, even though it is a violation of the MOTOR VEHICLE CODE?
2. Would your deputies be able to explain the emergency that caused them to use their emergency lights and sirens to stop an individual for a routine traffic stop?
3. Would you allow your deputies to stop an individual for a routine traffic stop without a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) of a crime they have committed?
4. Would you allow your deputies to stop an individual for a routine traffic stop without a Single Articulable Fact (SAF) of a crime they have committed?
5. Would your deputies be able to explain to an individual that they stop for a routine traffic stop what crime they have committed, without having a reasonable articulable suspicion and without having a Single Articulable Fact (SAF)?
6. Would your deputies be able to prove that the individual they stop has caused harm or injury to another individual without a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) or a Single Articulable Fact (SAF)?
7. Would your deputies be able to prove to an individual they stop that they have stolen or damaged another individual's property without a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) or a Single Articulable Fact (SAF)?
8. Would your deputies be able to explain the reason they stopped an individual without any probable cause of a crime they have committed, without a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) or a Single Articulable Fact (SAF)?
9. If your deputies are aware that it is a violation of the MOTOR VEHICLE CODE to use their emergency lights and sirens to stop an individual for a routine traffic stop, why do they continue to stop people? How can your deputies stop an individual for a routine traffic stop by violating the MOTOR VEHICLE CODE and using the emergency lights and sirens without even having a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) or a Single Articulable Fact (SAF)?
10. Would your deputies willingly and knowingly violate the constitutional rights of an individual by stopping them for a routine traffic stop without having a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) or a Single Articulable Fact (SAF) of any crime they have committed?
LET IT BE KNOWN
That individuals have successfully filed a lawsuit and a claim against the surety bond company of county sheriff departments for being arrested and/or detained by a county sheriff's office without having probable cause of a crime they have actually committed to arrest them and for not having a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) or a Single Articulable Fact (SAF).
-
The fact of the matter is that the police—no matter if it is your county sheriff, city police, or state police—have a role to focus on individuals who are either harming or injuring another individual, or stealing or damaging another individual's property.
So, in other words, if you are not harming or injuring another individual, or if you are not stealing or damaging property from another individual, they, in fact, have no reason to stop you.
Knowing the law and knowing your rights is power.
NOTE: It's very interesting that the police will knowingly violate the MOTOR VEHICLE CODE by using their emergency lights and sirens to stop you for a routine traffic stop (which does not constitute an actual emergency), and then proceed to give you a citation for violating their unconstitutional speed limit or whatever citation they issue you for.
---
REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION (RAS)
1. Reasonable: The suspicion must be based on specific and concrete facts, not just a vague hunch. It needs to be something that a reasonable individual would agree is suspicious. This standard ensures that actions taken are grounded in objective evidence, rather than subjective feelings or biases, thereby upholding fairness and integrity.
2. Articulable: The officer must be able to explain or articulate why they were suspicious. This explanation should be clear and specific, detailing the observations or circumstances that led to their concern. Such clarity is crucial for accountability and helps ensure that any actions taken are justified and transparent.
3. Suspicion: The officer must suspect that the individual is involved in criminal activity. This doesn’t mean the officer is certain, but there is enough evidence to believe something illegal might be happening. The suspicion should be based on observable facts or behavior that suggest a potential violation of the law, ensuring that any intervention is rooted in a reasonable and objective basis.
-
SINGLE ARTICULABLE FACT (SAF)
A single articulable fact is a specific, observable detail that a law enforcement officer can use to justify their suspicion that an individual may be involved in criminal activity. This fact must be clear, specific, and based on actual observations or information, rather than a vague feeling or generalized assumption.
Here are key details about what constitutes a single articulable fact:
1. Specificity
The fact must be clear and detailed, not generalized. It should describe a particular behavior, appearance, or circumstance.
2. Observability
The fact must be something that the officer personally observed or was reported with accuracy.
3. Connection to Potential Criminal Activity
The fact must reasonably suggest that criminal activity might be afoot. It doesn’t need to prove a crime has been committed, but it should indicate that further investigation is warranted.
4. Relevance
The fact must be relevant to the situation at hand. It must be a detail that logically contributes to the suspicion of criminal activity.
5. Ability to Articulate
The officer must be able to clearly explain why this particular fact raised their suspicion. They should be able to describe it in a way that makes sense to others, including a court.
6. Objectivity
The fact must be based on objective criteria rather than individual bias or assumptions. It should be something that others could observe and interpret similarly.
7. Legal Precedent
The fact must be something that has been recognized in legal contexts as sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. Courts often look at the totality of circumstances, but a single articulable fact can be enough if it strongly suggests criminal activity.
In summary, a Single Articulable Fact is a specific, observable, and relevant detail that can be clearly explained and justified by law enforcement as a basis for reasonable suspicion. It’s an essential component in ensuring that police actions are grounded in reality and are defensible in court.
-
NON-EMERGENCY USE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE LIGHTS AND SIRENS
Non-emergency use of emergency vehicle lights and sirens is a felony. An emergency is by the courts defined as "a sudden, unexpected, or impending situation, involving injury, loss of life, damage to property, or catastrophic interference with normal activities, that requires immediate attention and remedial action.
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE - Section 257.698
Use of Lights and Sirens
Emergency Use Only:
Police vehicles are authorized to use flashing, oscillating, or rotating red or blue lights and sirens only when responding to an emergency situation. This includes scenarios such as pursuing a suspect, responding to a crime in progress, or other situations that pose an immediate threat to life or property.
