News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, January 9, 2026

Man’s Misunderstanding of Traffic Stop Rules Results in Prison Sentence

On January 5, 2026, Achak “Ben” Aniyunwiya, formerly known as Robert Clark Thompson Jr., was sentenced to 30 months in prison after his conviction at trial for failure to comply with the order of a police officer and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle.

Aniyunwiya represented himself during the trial held November 14, 2025 and was promptly convicted by a jury of his peers. Aniyunwiya’s case stemmed from an encounter with local law enforcement during a traffic interaction in which he failed to comply with the basic legal requirements involving officers on the street.

Because there is widespread misunderstanding of what is required of a person who is being pulled over, or who has been pulled over, this release will explain some basic rules which led to Aniyunwiya’s legal troubles.

Almost all the requirements established for motorists’ conduct during traffic stops come from a public concern for officer and motorist safety.

Traffic stops are statistically some of the most dangerous activities in which officers are involved. Dating back to the 1960’s traffic stops account for a third or more of police deadly force encounters.



Requirement to Immediately Stop:

The first legal requirement Aniyunwiya violated occurred when he did not immediately pull his vehicle to the side of the road after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to do so. In Ohio, failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer is a crime.

In 2025, the Ohio legislature elevated this offense so that in every instance, failure to pull over after being given a signal to stop is a felony. It is a higher degree felony if fleeing creates a risk of harm, or if the person is fleeing after committing a different felony crime.



Requirement to Immediately Exit the Vehicle:

The United States Supreme Court has established that a vehicle occupant must exit a vehicle if ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer. This is required of every motorist or passenger, in every single traffic stop, under all circumstances.

Failure to exit a vehicle when ordered to do so by law enforcement is the crime of obstructing official business.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, decided in 1977, establishes these legal protections for officers, and highlights the risks to officer safety that justify this potential intrusion during every legal traffic stop. Maryland v. Wilson, decided in 1997, established that these requirements exist for every passenger in a motor vehicle.

During the traffic interaction with law enforcement Aniyunwiya refused to exit his vehicle.



No Right to Have Offenses Explained on the Roadside:

A person who has been stopped for a traffic violation does not have the right to an explanation of why the stop has occurred.

Officers routinely provide this information. Often times, as part of their traffic interaction and sometimes as a matter of courtesy. In any case, the proper location for litigating a traffic citation or interaction is in court, not on the side of the road.



No Right to a Supervisor:

A person stopped for a traffic violation has no right to demand a supervisor respond to the scene, and no right to delay immediate compliance with the orders of an officer who has stopped them.

Aniyunwiya demanded not only to speak to a supervisor, but demanded specifically to speak with the County Sheriff, Matt Lutz. Refusing to obey officer orders, or conditioning compliance with those orders upon the arrival of additional personnel is the crime of obstructing official business.

Zanesville Police Officers were patient with Aniyunwiya, and although neither they nor Sheriff Lutz were required to accommodate him, they did call the Sheriff. Sheriff Lutz did arrive at the scene and was eventually able to talk Aniyunwiya out of his vehicle.

This mirrors a previous case in 2022 with Aniyunwiya where he was illegally armed with a firearm, refused to comply with officers, and demanded to negotiate his surrender with the Sheriff.



Requirement to Display Real License Plates:

Motorists must display valid license plates on their vehicle while driving in public. Aniyunwiya displayed home-made license plates which stated “Private” upon them. Displaying counterfeit or fictitious licensed plates is a crime, and one which virtually guarantees that a person will experience a traffic stop.



Sovereign Citizens:

Some people read online conspiracies and come to believe that the laws of the United States and the State of Ohio do not apply to them. These conspiracy theories, commonly referred to as “Sovereign Citizen” theories are not true. There is not a special or clever trick that someone can discover on the internet which allows them to operate outside of legal norms of society.

Aniyunwiya wrongly believed that having adopted a native American identity and a set of online legal theories, that he was not required to have license plates, and that the only valid law enforcement person in the county is the Sheriff.

Because law enforcement goes out of its way to ensure safety of the public, themselves, and even of criminals with whom they are interacting, they often accommodate the whims of Sovereign Citizens. For instance, in this case, although the officers were entitled to approach Aniyunwiya and physically remove him from his vehicle to take him to jail, they called for the Sheriff and waited.

Sovereign Citizen conspirators often take these accommodations as “proof” that they have the right to summon the Sheriff. This is untrue, and it is a result of those persons confusing a safety-related courtesy with a legal requirement.



Constitutional Carry:

Ohio has adopted rules commonly referred to as “Constitutional Carry,” concerning the carrying of loaded handguns by citizens. These rules are more complicated than the general understanding that no one needs a concealed carry license.

What the law means now is that every adult over 21 years of age who would qualify to receive a concealed carry license is presumed to have one. The test is whether the person would be granted such a license at the time of the interaction with the police, if the person answered all of the questions honestly.

This means that there are over twenty disqualifiers that can apply in any given situation. Some examples include being underage, being a user of drugs (including marijuana), previous convictions for any felony, assault, or resisting arrest.

Police discovered a loaded firearm in the vehicle after taking Aniyunwiya into custody. Aniyunwiya was a previously convicted felon, unable to possess a firearm legally and was also in possession of marijuana and a smoking bowl openly in his vehicle. Therefore, he did not meet the qualifications for Constitutional Carry protection.



Sentencing:

Aniyunwiya’s armed roadside stand-off was a dangerous situation which drained law enforcement resources from around the County. Zanesville Police Officers and the Muskingum County Sheriff’s office handled the situation safely and professionally, offering patience where it was not legally required, resulting in the safest outcome for all involved.

The case proceeded to trial with Aniyunwiya representing himself, and Assistant Prosecutor Michael Hughes handling the prosecution.

Judge Gerald Anderson, who oversaw the case, sentenced Aniyunwiya to 30 months in prison. This sentence was 18 months longer than his last prison sentence for doing the same thing in 2022.

The Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office thanks our local law enforcement officers for enduring the hardship of this and similar cases and keeping our community safe from people who do not believe the law applies to them.

###
Follow the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office on Facebook for the most current and complete information.