I titled this video Supreme Court rules no license necessary to drive on public highways I am not a lawyer I am not giving legal advice but I am going to read from an appellate court I'm going to read from Supreme Court cases that testify they Testify the Supreme Court testifies the lower court testifies that you don't need a license to drive on public highways in America again I'm not giving advice do what you want but just educate yourself remember Samuel Adams said no people will tamely surrender their Liberties nor can any be easily subdued when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved on the contrary when people are universally ignorant and debauched In Their Manners they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign Invaders when knowledge is diffused it's very very difficult to come against somebody who has that knowledge because knowledge is power and so I'm going to start from the ending and work our way back and the thing I want to key in on in this case people versus Horton is this little phrase right here this little this little sentence the right of the citizen and we can talk about you know the word citizen versus people you know because you're not a Denizen of the city you're an individual the right of a citizen to travel on a public street with freedom from police interference unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a fundamental constitutional right not a privilege which must be protected by the courts it is a fundamental Elementary constitutional right because I keep hearing people saying what drought drove me toward this in the last couple days is for some reason this video is recommended to me in my YouTube list and I listen to it and I've stumbled upon this section in this video it's called why restrict good gun owners resident ask President Obama at Town Hall this was from June 2nd 2016. listen to what Obama says this isn't this the broader context of this is Werner Hillary and and I are not trying to take away your rights but you know there's got to be common sense gun regulation you're for common sense gun regulation aren't you and then he tries to correlate this with well everybody needs a license to drive a car why wouldn't you need a license to buy a gun here's what Obama said if you buy a car if you want to get a license first of all you got to get a license you have to take a test you have to people have to know that you know how to drive you got to get a license well not according to the Constitution not according to natural law which is the most important or the supreme law of the land which is the Constitution or the Supreme Court or the lower courts there are many many rulings and we're just going to go over this one right here people versus Horton and it's an interesting story so stay with me because basically I'm going to be reading from this court of appeals of California fifth appellate District but it's also been upheld by the Supreme Court the Supreme Court appellate was convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of health and safety code section 11530 the marijuana was found in appellant's automobile after he consented to the search of the vehicle now this is going to be very very important later on in this case appellant presents two main points for reversal that the officer who stopped the vehicle did not have probable cause to do so or to detain appellant that a search made pursuant to consent immediately followed an illegal detention is invalid this is going to become very important here in a second so there are a couple kernels of Truth to add to our knowledge banks on this court decision the facts are Undisputed appellant a 20 year old youth was stopped by Officer Winfrey while driving an automobile on McHenry Avenue in Modesto at about 1 15 in the morning there were two passengers in the car repellent's 15 year old brother and his ten-year-old cousin as officer Winfrey approached the automobile he noticed that there was no key in the ignition the officer mentioned this fact to appellant and was told that appellant had lost the keys about two weeks earlier and that he had to hotwire the vehicle to start it Winfrey asked appellants permission to search the automobile and permission was granted he found two burnt cigarettes in the glove compartment officer Winfrey then asked to see vehicle registration slip and when he discovered that the car was registered to Lillian lacas in Rosemead California placed a pellent under arrest appellant was searched and a rolled cigarette was found in his shirt pocket all three cigarettes contained marijuana so you would think oh busted you know it's curtains for this guy it's all over well that's not how the court saw it it is of course true as respondent maintains that the provocation required to permit a police officer to temporarily detain a person for questioning is not the same as that required for a valid arrest or a lawful search nevertheless and that gives a couple court cases right here nevertheless the right of a police officer to stop a motorist or detain a pedestrian for questioning is not without constitutional restriction you hear that cops your ability the ability to even stop somebody during a traffic stop that you think is warranted is not without constitutional restriction you're bound still by the Constitution the applicable rules were succinctly summarized by Mr Justice Tamara and Williams versus Superior Court and gives the court case as follows and here's a here's a quote from that so here's an appellate court citing a supreme court a superior court case as follows quote thus although circumstances short of probable cause to arrest May justify an officer's act in stopping and temporarily titanium motorist or pedestrian for questioning there must be some suspicious or unusual circumstance to justify even this limited invasion of a citizen's privacy so it sounds like this appellate court is completely on the side of the individual and wants to hover over and maintain and secure and protect this individual's rights unalienable rights and then it gives a couple more court cases generally the test is whether the circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man in a like position that such a course is necessary to the proper discharge of the officer's duties and then it gives this people versus one 1960 Cadillac and it's got a couple other court cases right here more specifically the officer must be able to point to specific and articulated facts which taken together with rational inferences from the facts reasonably warrant that intrusion it's got Terror it even quotes Terry V Ohio here which is pretty interesting a mere hunch or subjective suspicion will not justify a temporary detention and yet that's what you see in Terry View Ohio oh officer safety trumps individual rights is what Terry V Ohio should actually be termed and unusual activity alone unless there is some suggestion that is related to criminality is insufficient and then they say applying these principles these are principles to the instant case we're impelled to conclude that officer Winfrey did not have legal cause to stop appellant's automobile appellant was driving within the legal speed limits not erratically and there were no visible operational defects on the vehicle furthermore although the officer observed two young passengers in the vehicle he saw no furtive or suspicious movements and he had no information that the user being kidnapped tamed or molested in any manner in fact the only reason given by Winfrey for stopping appellant was that appellant was driving a vehicle along the streets of Modesto at 1 15 in the morning with two young passengers and that he did not look old enough to be their parent or Guardian that's all he had according to his testimony clearly even if we should assume that what the officer observed constituted unusual activity and it is difficult to make such an assumption in this Modern Age the activity alone did not suggest that it was related to criminality and this brings us back to they can't even ask you to be insecure in your person's houses papers and effects or specifically in your person ask you for your ID guys privacy is a human right your privacy your anonymity is a human right it's an inalienable right when an officer tells you hey I need you to consent to me intruding upon your right to privacy by giving me your ID without there being any suspicion or articulous suspicion that you committed a crime he's violating his constitutional oath to protect you and to protect your privacy period according to the courts according to the Constitution according to natural law according to what we all know in our hearts to be true the Attorney General argued that officer Winfrey had reasonable cause to stop appellant's vehicle on suspicion that appellant was aiding and abetting his two young passengers to loiter in violation of the municipal ordinance of the City of Modesto and then he says however driving along city streets even at 1 15 in the morning is not loitering the court says for all that officer Winfrey knew appellant could have been driving his two young passengers home from a theater or other authorized place of amusement we are not insensitive to the numerous problems with which face police officers on patrol in a mechanized Nation as we stated in this Superior Court case right here and then they quote it quote the use and it's got this uh this code of the automobile and criminal activity has vastly increased the possibility of unlawful conduct and the likelihood of Escape by criminals from the scene of their crimes moreover we are cognizant of the fact that the great majority of police officers assume the grave responsibility which our society has voiced upon them in a courageous and conscientious manner nonetheless and that brings us to this quote right here nonetheless the right not the privilege Obama because people are constantly saying that driving a car or transporting your personal property from A to B on the public highways is a privilege granted to you by the government not an inalienable right given to you at Birth by God or whoever or just it's just inherently in you they're constantly calling it a privilege again not according to the Supreme Court not according to lower courts not according to the Constitution and for goodness sakes not according to natural law I mean where do you you literally have to pull something out of your ass to say no you need to be you need the government's permission to take your personal property upon the public highways you it's making it up nonetheless the right not the privilege of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts that's powerful consequently while we do not censure officer Winfrey or question his motives the fact remains that he stopped appellant's vehicle solely because it was occupied by young people that's all it was oh it just looks suspicious to me it was occupied by young people were we to condone the stopping of vehicles for this reason alone no matter how altruistic the officer's motives might be we would lend our approval to the creation of a second-class citizenry holy cow if this appellate court is not on the side of the of the individual they are we would also contribute to an already deteriorating relationship between the Youth of American law enforcement officials too late in a free Nation this relationship must be based on Mutual confidence and respect having decided that officer Winfrey did not have probable cause to stop a penalty vehicle in the first place in the first instance it follows that the subsequent search was unlawful even though consented to by appellate it was une even though the guy said yeah you can go ahead and search my vehicle it was still unlawful for the officer to do so according to this Court ruling and that all evidence educed there from was the product of an unlawful search as our Supreme Court said in people versus Haven there you go got the supreme law of the land the Constitution you got lower courts you got the Supreme Court you got universal law and and they quote this right here quote a search or seizure made pursuant to a valid consent valid consent before any illegal police conduct occurs is obviously not a product of illegal conduct a surgeon seizure made pursuant to consent pursuant to consent secured immediately following an illegal entry or arrest however is inextricably bound up with the illegal conduct and cannot be segregated there from well that's that's just powerful right there the case of people versus Franklin is squarely in point there as here the officer stopped the defendant's vehicle without probable cause and afterward defendant consented to the search which ultimately uncovered marijuana the court is reversing the conviction so this guy's not going to get in trouble at page 707 of the opinion I had to say this quote the stop having been illegal the search though by consent of the owner does not breathe legality into the resultant find by the officers the judgment is reversed says Ginsburg concurred so I just want to show you that according to the lower courts according to the Supreme Court if you want to know about the Supreme Court here here are a couple Court rulings right here I mean the the uh the wording is amazing and right here uh Chicago coach company versus City of Chicago and people can brush this under the rug if they want to but this is a Supreme Court case no state government entity no state government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways byways or waterways transporting his vehicles and personal property for either Recreation or business but by being subject only to local regulation I.E safety caution traffic lights speed limits Etc travel is not a privilege requiring licensing vehicle registration or Forest insurances now when I get done rendering this video right here because we are on a live stream I will make sure that I put every single link including the Obama Link in the description and in the pinned comment so you can look this stuff up for yourself knowledge is power travel is not a privilege requiring licensing vehicle registration or forced insurances that's what the courts have ruled that's not me that's not me saying this this right here in Wingfield versus Fielder the court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession business trade or calling thus when merely merely traveling so they make they make a distinction here without compensation or profit traveling without compensation profit you're just going from point A to point e b minding your own business you're not working for somebody you're not contracted for somebody you're not doing this for profit you're just taking your personal uh property your car from point A to point B merely traveling without compensation or profit outside of business Enterprise or adventure with the corporate State no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business pleasure and transportation personal business pleasure and transportation that's Wingfield versus Fielder let me go let me I'll just go over this other one this is Barbarian versus lucier it says the use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood Modern Life requires Us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile in the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees partakes of the nature of Liberty it's like this is fun to fundamental this is basic this is inalienable or unalienable however you want to put it you can't put a lien on this you can't require somebody to have a license to take their property from point A to point B on the public highways and byways in an automobile the right of the citizen look at this the right of the citizen to drive see they sometimes they use it interchangeably this is people versus Horton uh this is the one we just read the right of the citizen to drive in the public street with freedom from police interference unless he's engaged in a suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts I'm gonna go ahead and end this video because I don't want it to go too long but I want to let you know that according to the Supreme Court according to the lower courts according to the Constitution according to natural law and I'm again I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving any kind of advice I'm not telling you what to do I'm just telling you what the courts have said there is no license requirement to drive on the public highways and byways according to the lower courts and the Supreme Courts I will leave all the links to everything we just went over in the comments section or in the um in the description and in the pin comment or the comment section if you guys have any questions about this if you want to support this channel in any way the cash app link and all that stuff buy me a coffee is in the description if you want to if you want to further this content I really appreciate you being here one of the best things that you can do for this channel is free just like this video and share with everybody you know because guys knowledge is power I'm going to give you another Samuel Adams quote in closing a general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy while the people are virtuous and knowledgeable they cannot be subdued but when once they lose their virtue then they'll be ready to surrender their Liberties to the first external or internal Invader we have to guard with jealous attention the public Liberty and we have to guard it with knowledge knowledge is the power that's going to get us out of this mess that we find ourselves in right now leave your thoughts about this for the world and the global thought police in the comments section below if you haven't done so already subscribe to this channel hit the Bell notification icon give it a thumbs up share it with everybody you know if you want to grab one of these designs right here this right here is a different animal same Shiite it go you can go to the store and get the design on a shirt hoodie mug cell phone case whatever you want it really helps support the channel I appreciate you guys and I will see you guys in the next video thank you