Police has formalised updated advice for dealing with sovereign citizens, reinforcing a clear message to Police Association members: Treat every interaction professionally and lawfully, but recognise the heightened risks and plan accordingly.

The recently released Sovereign Citizens (SovCits) chapter in the Police Manual brings operational tactics, legal guidance and intelligence requirements into a single framework aimed at keeping staff safe while maintaining public order.

At its core is a recognition that SovCits can present unique and unpredictable challenges.

The manual describes them as individuals who believe they are not subject to government authority, often refusing to comply with routine policing actions and relying on “pseudo-legal” arguments.

Safety first, always

The strongest theme running through the updated advice is officer safety.

Staff are to prioritise their own safety and that of the public in every interaction, with SovCits more likely to be non-compliant or confrontational.

To manage that risk, the guidance emphasises the use of TENR (Threat, Exposure, Necessity, Response) alongside the Graduated Response Model – Engage, Educate, Encourage, Enforcement. That means slowing situations down where possible, communicating clearly, and giving individuals opportunities to comply before enforcement action is taken.

But it also makes clear that if behaviour escalates, officers should not hesitate to act within their lawful powers. The “why” is simple: SovCit encounters can shift quickly from unusual to unsafe.

Training material presented by Police and legal experts notes some individuals “thrive on the disruption caused by their actions”, and staff are encouraged to minimise opportunities for escalation while maintaining control.

Assert authority, don’t debate

A key operational shift is the emphasis on not engaging in pseudo-legal debate.

Officers are instructed to clearly and calmly assert their lawful authority – that all people in New Zealand are subject to the law – and avoid being drawn into arguments about concepts such as “common law”, “contracts” or the Magna Carta.

Those arguments have no legal standing, the manual says, and engaging with them risks prolonging encounters and increasing tension. Instead, staff are told to focus on the task at hand and proceed using standard enforcement powers where required – whether that’s issuing an infringement, making an arrest or directing a driver off the road.

The guidance reinforces that SovCit interactions should be approached with preparation.

Common behaviours include refusing to provide identification, presenting fake driver licences or diplomatic IDs, or claiming they are “travelling” rather than driving. While these claims are invalid in law, they can still complicate encounters. Officers are advised to scan and record any documentation presented, as it may still contain useful identifying information.

Scenarios in the manual outline clear responses: Proceed with enforcement as normal, apply relevant legislation and document everything.

One of the most significant updates is the requirement to record and share information.

If an officer believes they have dealt with a SovCit, they must create a National Intelligence Application record and notify the Security Intelligence and Threats Group. The aim is to build a national picture and reduce risk for the next staff member who encounters that individual.

Where additional risk factors are present – such as firearms access or signs of extremist ideology – the response escalates to specialist teams, including Te Tari Pūreke and the National Security Group.

While the guidance is clear that not all SovCits pose a security threat, it acknowledges that some beliefs can overlap with violent extremism.

When things go wrong

The emphasis on safety, planning and intelligence reflects how quickly seemingly routine jobs can turn high-risk.

In Australia, self-described sovereign citizen Dezi Freeman shot and killed two police officers during what began as a standard search warrant execution at a rural property in late August 2025. A third officer was injured. The job was not initially assessed as an armed confrontation.

However, Freeman – who had a history of anti-police views and non-compliance – opened fire on officers as they approached, sparking one of the largest manhunts in Victoria Police history. He evaded police for months before being located and fatally shot after emerging armed during a confrontation on March 30.

The case highlights the unpredictable nature of some SovCit devotees and reinforces why New Zealand Police’s manual stresses situational awareness, tactical positioning and the use of TENR from the outset – even in jobs that may appear routine.

It also highlights the importance of information sharing. Prior knowledge of behaviour, beliefs or access to firearms can significantly change how an incident is approached and resourced, reducing the risk to frontline staff.

Hidden workload

The updated advice also addresses the less visible impact of the movement – the administrative burden. SovCits are known for “paper terrorism”, sending large volumes of pseudo-legal documents and information requests designed to disrupt and overwhelm.

Staff are reminded to treat legitimate requests under the Official Information Act, Privacy Act and Criminal Disclosure Act as they would any other, but to ignore statements that are not genuine requests for information.

Training material warns that genuine requests can be buried in lengthy, confusing correspondence, requiring careful assessment.

Ultimately, the updated guidance is about consistency.

SovCits are to be treated like any other member of the public – with professionalism, respect and adherence to the law – but with an informed awareness of the risks they can present.

For Police Association members, the takeaway is clear: Don’t be distracted by the rhetoric, don’t debate the law, prioritise safety and make sure the next officer is better prepared by recording what you’ve seen.