In People v. Quinn Shinda Bass, 2025 the California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Quinn Shinda Bass for resisting an executive officer and resisting arrest, rejecting his claims that law enforcement engaged in misconduct. The court specifically addressed Bass’s reliance on sovereign citizen arguments, dismissing them as legally irrelevant and procedurally defective.
The case stemmed from a 2019 traffic stop in which Bass, driving with his wife, allegedly failed to comply with officers’ commands, resisted arrest, and engaged in conduct that led to an officer sustaining a dislocated shoulder. During pretrial proceedings, Bass filed a Pitchess motion seeking access to the officers’ personnel records, alleging misconduct, fabrication of probable cause, and excessive force. However, the trial court denied the request, citing the lack of a valid affidavit or declaration, as well as the failure to present a plausible alternative factual scenario contradicting the officers’ version of events.
On appeal, Bass continued to assert that the officers had no probable cause to stop him, invoking references to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 1-308), declarations of “unalienable rights,” and signing legal documents with phrases such as “Without Recourse” and “Sui Juris.” The court noted that Bass’s filings were procedurally defective, lacked the necessary legal formalities, and failed to articulate a legally cognizable claim.
In affirming the lower court’s decision, the majority opinion emphasized that sovereign citizen rhetoric does not exempt individuals from legal obligations or procedural requirements. The court found that Bass’s filings did not meet the necessary evidentiary standards for obtaining discovery of police misconduct records and that his claims were too vague to warrant further review.
A dissenting opinion by Judge Raphael, however, argued that the trial court erred by not at least conducting an in-camera review of the requested records. The dissent took issue with the court’s outright dismissal of Bass’s claims and suggested that, despite procedural irregularities, he had presented enough information to warrant further examination.
Ultimately, the court’s ruling reinforces the judiciary’s firm stance against sovereign citizen legal tactics, reiterating that such arguments do not confer special rights or immunities from standard legal procedures.
Source: People v. Quinn Shinda Bass, 2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).