How to recognize actual "sovereign citizens" (eg. in traffic stop videos)

There are quite many YouTube channels that are dedicated to showing "sovereign citizens" being confronted (and often arrested) by cops (most often in traffic stops).

One big problem I have seen with many of these channels is that they use the term "sovereign citizen" extremely loosely, slapping that term in the title of almost every single video completely regardless of whether the person depicted in the video presents any actual "sovereign citizen" talking points or not. At worst, that I have seen, is maybe half of the videos of one of these channels having "sovereign citizen" in the title, yet the person being confronted by cops and arrested very clearly does not believe in any of that nonsense.

Indeed, it seems to me that these YouTube channels don't really care what the term actually means, and just slap it in the title of the video (and often use it while narrating or commenting in the video itself) almost automatically. They use the term extremely loosely, almost like an insult, apparently with a meaning that's something along the lines of "someone who argues with cops."

Just because someone is uncooperative and argues with cops doesn't somehow make him automatically a "sovereign citizen". That's not what that term means. Even though that movement is a huge conspiracy theory and is absolutely bonkers, it's still relatively well defined with a set of clear beliefs that can be quite easily recognized. It's not merely "arguing with cops and refusing to follow their orders". It's a relatively clear set of beliefs that can be easily recognized by the terms and expressions they use, which they use very consistently.

So, how to recognize and actual "sovereign citizen" eg. in a traffic stop video, in other words, what are and are not clear signs of the person being one:

• If the first thing the driver says to the cop is "what's the emergency?", it's maybe 80-90% certain this is a sovcit, because it's something that almost exclusively sovcits say. But this, alone, without any other supporting evidence, is not a guarantee.
• If the driver says "am I being detained or am I free to go" during the traffic stop, it's maybe 50-50. All in itself it's not sufficient evidence. 
• If the driver says the classic archetypal "I'm not driving, I'm traveling", then it's 100% a sign of a sovcit. Another equivalent expression is "I'm not operating a motor vehicle." (It still does not tell us how deep into the conspiracy theory the driver may be, and how much he may have studied the ideology, but it's certain that at a minimum he has been reading some sovcit material and/or "tutorials".)
• Likewise if he says that he's "not operating in commerce" (or a very close variation of that), or "driving is a commercial activity", then it's also a 100% sure sign. Likewise if he claims that "you only need a driver's license if you are operating in commerce" or anything to that effect.
• If he says he's an "American national" or "Moorish", then he's 99% certain to be a sovcit.
• If the car has custom fake plates (usually saying something like "private" or other similar things), it's 99.9% likely to be a sovcit. If the fake plates say "not for hire", then it's 100% certain.
• If there's a "not for hire" sign anywhere else in the car, then it's likewise 100% certain. 
• If the driver uses the word "contracting" or "contract", it's 99.9% certain he's a sovcit. If he mentions "jurisdiction", he's a sovcit maybe with 95% certainty. If he uses the word "corporation" when referring to the cops themselves or the government, it's pretty much 100% certain.
• If he claims that arresting him is "kidnapping", it's 99% certain he's a sovcit. 
• If he tries to make the traffic cop fill out a form, he's 100% a sovcit.
• If he hands the cop some documents that are not what the cop asked for (ie. driver's license and insurance) then it's 99% likely to be a sovcit.
• The driver asking for a supervisor is maybe 70-80% likely to be a sovcit. Not certain without any other evidence.
• If the driver mentions the "Supreme Court", then it's 95% likely to be a sovcit.
• The driver hesitating or outright refusing to give his driver's license immediately when asked is not in itself a clear sign of anything.
• The driver demanding to know what the traffic stop is for before surrendering his driver's license is likewise not a clear sign either. 
• The driver not having a driver's license at all is maybe 50-50. All by itself, lacking any other typical sovcit rhetoric, it's not sufficient to say for sure.
• The driver not having insurance documentation is not in itself a sign of a sovcit.
• The driver refusing to exit the car, and perhaps having to be forcefully removed, is not by itself, lacking any other evidence, a sign that he's a sovcit.
• The driver asking "what crime have I committed?" is maybe a 50-50. During traffic stops this is something mostly said by sovcits, but all by itself it isn't yet proof. (In other situations it's much more common for non-sovcits to ask that question, especially when asked for ID.) 
• The driver accusing the cops of being "road pirates" and "robbers" is not in itself an absolute sign of a sovcit, without any further evidence.
• The cop accusing the driver of being a "sovereign citizen" doesn't in itself mean anything. Cops can be as confused about this as those YouTube channel authors.
• Likewise the driver denying being a "sovereign citizen" doesn't mean anything. All sovcits do that nowadays (because they have been taught to do so, because of the bad reputation that the term carries.) 

If the car has valid official license plates (even if they might be expired and that's the reason for the stop), the driver has a valid driver's license and insurance documentation, and doesn't use any of the archetypal sovcit expressions as describe above, then it's pretty much guaranteed he is not a "sovereign citizen", no matter how much he argues with and fights the cops, even if he does so much that he gets arrested.