You could argue that having authorities that abuse their authority to self-serving ends renders that authority illegitimate, but by the admission of Anarcho-tyranny's own proponents (as a theory), they still recognize the existence of these "authorities", and just contest the governance decisions made by those authorities.
That's certainly a bad government, but to call it anarcho-anything is just downright confusing.
Emphasis mine. The Government failing to recognize it's own laws and founding principles absolutely qualifies as anarchy.
Anarchy as a state(1) of disorder predates Anarchy as a form of government for a state(2).
Anarchy 1530s, "absence of government," from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
From 1660s as "confusion or absence of authority in general;" by 1849 in reference to the social theory advocating "order without power," with associations and co-operatives taking the place of direct government, as formulated in the 1830s by French political philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865).
It is this dysfunctionionality that makes free market oriented societies that place greater limits on the power of the state generally more prosperous than societies with significant government intervention, despite the latter theoretically being better able to address a litany of collective action problems.
The government doesn't have the bandwidth to move on collective action problems that people don't already have figured out by some other means, voting isn't a great tool for doing more than the really basic stuff like keeping a military and police force functional. And even for things like the military, private sector institutions are better at building all the components.
We have corporations (using a very wide definition that includes non-profit entities that are legally similar) that tackle every problem under the sun. You can't expect beat an entity that exists for the sole purpose of addressing a problem with a general purpose schizophrenic institution like a government.
So if someone had (say) $1000 in cash in there, they'd be told to pick out the bank notes or something.
At which point it's just gambling as to whether any particular bank note is going to get you arrested or not due to it having a bad history.
Maybe 10y ago I was robbed. The investigator who took my case, a month later, asked me if I had anything to drink that night. I said, yeah, one beer about 7hr earlier. He said that because I drank that night that would close the investigation and that was that.