Introduction
Sovereign citizens often make a particular claim during traffic stops: they insist they are merely “traveling,” not “driving.” This statement is part of a larger belief system and defense strategy used to challenge law enforcement. But what is the sovereign citizen movement, and why do its followers make this claim? In this post, I will briefly summarize the (convoluted) reasoning Sovereign Citizens use to draw the traveling/driving distinction. I will also explain why this reasoning is flawed. At the end of this post, my hope is that the reader will at the very least be entertained. At best, I want to prevent someone from falling for this faulty reasoning and picking up an unnecessary criminal conviction.
Who are Sovereign Citizens?
Sovereign citizens reject the legitimacy of the United States government. They believe they are not subject to federal, state, or local laws. Often, they use pseudo-legal arguments to avoid paying taxes, following regulations, or cooperating with law enforcement. This movement has a long history and is seen as an extremist ideology by the FBI. Importantly, these beliefs often result in confrontations with legal authorities.
What Is the “Traveling Defense”?
When sovereign citizens say they are “traveling,” they mean they are not “driving” under legal terms. They argue that “driving” refers to operating a vehicle for commercial purposes, such as being a taxi driver. They draw from the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution as an attempt to justify their argument. As a result, they claim laws requiring licenses or registration apply only to commercial drivers, not private citizens “traveling” in their own vehicles. According to this view, sovereign citizens argue that traffic stops and regulations violate their right to move freely.
Why This Defense Fails in Court
The “traveling defense” might sound compelling to some, but courts have consistently rejected it. In U.S. law, “driving” does not exclusively mean commercial driving. States require licenses to ensure public safety, and traffic laws protect all road users. Sovereign citizen arguments ignore these public safety concerns and misinterpret legal terms. Courts have ruled repeatedly that driving is a privilege, not an inherent right. For these reasons, this defense is ineffective and can lead to additional charges or penalties for noncompliance. Interference with Public Duties is one common charge that police often add to a traffic stop involving a sovereign citizen.
Conclusion
Sovereign citizens claim they are “traveling” to challenge traffic laws, but this defense has no legal basis. Understanding this flawed defense helps clarify why it fails in court and why those who use it often face severe legal consequences. Traffic laws exist for everyone’s safety, and lawful drivers should follow them.