Rhode Island Court Rejects 'Affidavit of Truth' Defense to Speeding Charge

Judge cites Supreme Court precedent in denying dismissal request based on natural law immunity claim.

Published on Feb. 13, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Rhode Island District Court judge has denied a driver's request to dismiss a speeding charge, rejecting the motorist's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over her because she had filed an 'Affidavit of Truth' claiming to be a 'living woman in the flesh and blood created by the Divine under Natural Law' with 'unalienable rights granted by the Creator.' The judge cited a previous state Supreme Court ruling that the right to operate a motor vehicle is not a fundamental right and can be regulated by the state.

Why it matters

This case highlights the continued efforts by some individuals to claim immunity from traffic laws and other government regulations based on fringe legal theories, despite consistent court rulings rejecting such arguments. It underscores the importance of courts firmly upholding established precedents to maintain the rule of law.

The details

The driver, who was cited for speeding, filed the 'Affidavit of Truth' in an attempt to have the charge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, Magistrate Joseph P. Ippolito ruled that the court was bound to follow the Rhode Island Supreme Court's previous decision in State v. Garvin, which rejected a similar 'sovereign citizen' argument and affirmed the state's authority to regulate motor vehicle use on public roads.

  • The speeding incident occurred at an unknown date prior to February 13, 2026.
  • The District Court decision was issued on February 13, 2026.

The players

Magistrate Joseph P. Ippolito

The Rhode Island District Court judge who denied the driver's request to dismiss the speeding charge.

State v. Garvin

A previous Rhode Island Supreme Court case that rejected a similar 'sovereign citizen' argument and affirmed the state's authority to regulate motor vehicle use on public roads.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This argument, while confidently stated, is without merit.”

— Magistrate Joseph P. Ippolito, Rhode Island District Court Judge (Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly)

“the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a fundamental right ... and it reminded us that 'the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the [L]egislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state.'”

— Rhode Island Supreme Court (Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly)

What’s next

The driver may choose to appeal the District Court's decision to a higher court, but the precedent set by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in the Garvin case suggests such an appeal would likely be unsuccessful.

The takeaway

This case underscores the continued need for courts to firmly reject fringe legal theories that attempt to claim immunity from established laws and regulations. Upholding the rule of law is crucial for maintaining an orderly and functional society, even in the face of creative legal arguments.