By David Tulis
January 24, 2026
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Monday, Jan. 19, 2026 - Imposing federal uniformity and unwilling to make Tennessee law work to reduce police abuse, the U.S. sixth circuit court of appeals is ignoring a first-of-its-kind petition asserting that driving and operating motor vehicle constitute a privilege.
Three judges in Cincinnati reject my complaint and uphold the U.S. district court dismissal by Travis McDonough in Chattanooga who rejects my lawsuit against Hamilton County Sheriff's deputy Brandon Bennett and the sheriff himself, Austin Garrett, on grounds that Mr. Bennett had probable cause to pull me over for a damaged taillight and jail me for both the cracked red lens and for refusing to display my driver license on the "meritless" grounds that I "was not traveling for the purpose of commerce."
The four-page Jan. 9, 2026, order maintains the status quo in criminalized traffic enforcement.
No relief can be expected from federal courts in efforts by people such as this radio journalist to make state privilege law work administratively. He seeks to decriminalize government management of driver licenses and licensees through criminal "traffic stops," which are scene of much violence against members of the public and also the most extreme danger that cop's daily face.
Law officers in every U.S. municipality enforce state traffic laws using criminal police powers when every state's laws, contrarily, put administration of traffic offenses in the hands of the state commissioner overseeing transportation or motor vehicle regulation. In arresting me on press business, Deputy Bennett was using the sheriff's criminal authority. In state law sheriff's deputies are "conservators of the peace, and it is the sheriff's duty to suppress all affrays, riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, insurrections, or other breaches of the peace, detect and prevent crime, arrest any person lawfully, execute process of law, and patrol the roads of the county."
In Tennessee traffic regulation, authority is not under "conservator of the peace" authority. It resides in title 55, motor and other vehicles, with the department of safety and homeland security commissioner Jeff Long using the economic police power of the regulatory state.
The commissioner is bound to hear all controversies regarding licenses and the use (or misuse) of driver licenses under a hearing officer in what is called a contested case. Contested cases are heard not under criminal procedure but under administrative law, codified in the state's uniform administrative procedures act. In Tennessee that is T.C.A. 4-5-101 et seq. This body of law controls every administrative spat between a licensee or taxpayer and a state agency.
Allegations regarding privilege taxable activity and use of a license is administrative under the board or commission responsible for the license. The judicial doctrine called the exhaustion of administrative remedies controls the steps in how the controversy develops. The contractor board hears accusations of wrongdoing under privilege by the plumber. The board of professional responsibility in Tennessee hears accusations of privilege wrongdoing by a lawyer.
My suit regarding my Nov. 22, 2023, arrest and jailing argued that since driving and operating a motor vehicle constitute an occupational privilege I have a right to have the State of Tennessee's grievance against me administered not criminally in Hamilton County general sessions court but administratively by the commissioner of safety or an administrative judge under the exhaustion doctrine, inside of which inhere my due process rights. Very civil; no violence, no dragging, no punishment.
The sixth circuit ignores this jurisprudence and legal infrastructure regarding state privilege, unable to reach the merits because of federal precedent.
A conclusory allegation that Bennett lacked probable cause to arrest him is insufficient to plead a claim for relief. *** Tulis's complaint did not allege facts that, if true, would show that Bennett lacked probable cause to arrest him. *** Bennett could lawfully stop Tulis if he had "reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation ha[d] occurred." United States v. Taylor, l2l F.4th 590, 594 (6th Cir. 2024). Tulis alleged that Bennett stopped him for a cracked taillight. Tulis did not allege at any point in his complaint that his taillight was not, in fact, cracked. So Bennett had reasonable suspicion to believe that Tulis was violating Tennessee Code § 55-9-402(b)(1), (c), which requires vehicles to have "two (2) red tail lamps" that are "in good condition and operational."
In every state disputes regarding citizens and the state are handled administratively inside the agency. Disputes over privilege, taxes and benefits are within the agency involved and are heard in contested cases. The loser then appeals to court. In other words in U.S. law, cases routinely are administered in the administrative department, and then they are adjudicated in a state court of record such as chancery.
Criminal penalties are attached to many provisions of law. My suit argues that by design they come into play in extremis - at the end of that process if the citizen keeps losing and contumaciously refuses to comply with a court order, according to my reading of law.
The three appeals judges uphold the lower court's reasoning in which it sees only a U.S. constitution fourth amendment issue and refuses to touch my claim that the requirements of privilege and its claims pre-empt criminal enforcement and questions of probable cause as a matter of law.
Tulis resists this conclusion by arguing that the taillight violation is merely a "civil infraction," not a "public offense" that would authorize arrest under Tennessee Code § 40-7-103. But for purposes of a § 1983 claim, we look to federal law to determine whether the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. *** ("[S]tate law defines the offense for which an officer may arrest a person, while federal law dictates whether probable cause existed for an arrest." (alteration in original) ***. And both the license violation and the taillight violation are Class C misdemeanors, sufficient for arrest under Tennessee law."
Says Christopher Sapp, midstate bureau chief for Eagle Radio Network for which I work, "They either don't want to rule on it or they have dinosaur arms - their arms are too short to reach the merits.
"This [driving motor vehicle] is the only privilege out of all the taxable privileges where the criminal element attaches first rather than at the end. It seems like it would touch on equal protection issues.
"Why are people engaged in the driving and travel privilege criminalized in the first instance but the barber who forgets to put the comb in the germicide or the cake decorator who forgets to clean frosting out of her little decorating thing, why are they not thrown into jail ? It seems discriminatory."
David Tulis works as investigative reporter for Eagle Radio Network in Chattanooga. He is suing in three courts to overturn the state program of universal mandatory auto insurance in Tennessee. He is the "smartest guy with a bow tie" on TikTok.