Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtCHP View Post
    Bottom line: a police officer has the right to give you an order that is within reason and substance.
    He certainly has the right to give any order to anyone, as does anybody else, but reason and substance alone don't make the order lawful, and therefore don't make the citizen to obey the order that is not based on the existing law. As you can see at http://tinyurl.com/2e87nyp , it required Supreme Court ruling to allow police to order passengers out of the vehicles, and even then several SC judges have dissented, and even that was justified by the fact that "the public interest in protecting the lives of police officers outweighed the minimal intrusion on the privacy of passengers", so even that was seen as a compromise. Naturally, if all required for the order to be mandatory was its being reasonable, no SC ruling would be necessary. If the police was allowed to issue any reasonable order, there would be no need for the SC to allow it.

    Other statutes may very well apply, for instance, interference with public officer exercising his duties, as posted by L-1 in this thread. But I don't think you will find a statute that says that police officer can in general case issue orders to others in any more degree than anybody else can. It's not to say that people shouldn't follow reasonable orders from the police, but I don't think they can be prosecuted for that when the order is not backed by the law.
    Last edited by vadimr; 05-05-2010 at 11:09 AM.

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11
    Anybody can be arrested, but I don't think they can be easily prosecuted for failure to obey.

  3. #28
    All Sas and Sarcasm!
    texaschickeee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Guess.....
    Posts
    10,980
    I see Ed is back. (He had a thread like this right before He went bye bye.


    just sayin.
    ‘Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.’
    Oscar Wilde

  4. #29
    Retired Sergeant - CHP
    SgtCHP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    6,252
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    Anybody can be arrested, but I don't think they can be easily prosecuted for failure to obey.
    Please return to, and read, my previous posts that QUOTE the law.

    My young friend, if I tell you that you are not going to pass by a certain point because of an investigation, disaster, controlled area, etc. and you persist in flaunting my directions, you will be arrested for many violations including: Failure to obey a lawful order!

    I don't have to have any additional law to perform that act. It is well spelled out that all persons have a duty to comply when given directions by a peace officer or firefighter. There is no refuting that fact.

    Again, the bottom line is: a police officer has the right to give you an order that is within reason and substance.

    Your argument that:

    "...He certainly has the right to give any order to anyone, as does anybody else, but reason and substance alone don't make the order lawful, and therefore don't make the citizen to obey the order that is not based on the existing law..."

    will do nothing but get someone in trouble. You best re-read the decision you posted as a reference. That deals with removing passengers from a vehicle for the purposes of an investigation.

    Any SCOTUS decision, any COA decision, any AG decision, is based on a case wherein someone refuses to accept the consequences of their actions and there is a need of clarification for their misdeeds. Many laws on the books have never had to be decided by any competent court and thusly, law enforcement has been free to interpret and act in a reasonable and prudent manner. Reason and Substance deal with REASONABLE and PRUDENT. They are synonymous.

    You are interpreting the case to satisfy your limited knowledge of the law and that is what gets a lot of people into trouble. Leave out your personal biases and read the decision word for word.
    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]


  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,952
    Alabama's law on the subject greatly mirrors the CVC. Addtionally, in situations not addressed by the Traffic Code, Title 13A of the Code of Alabama has a rather quaint charge of "Hindering Prosecution". This charge would cover disobedience to a Police Officer in situations other than traffic.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,952
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    Anybody can be arrested, but I don't think they can be easily prosecuted for failure to obey.
    Well Sir, the test of that theory is to try the disobedience you seem so eager to defend and/or indulge in. Officers on this forum, myself included have attempted to provide accurate answers to the original question posed by Velobard. These replies also cover the situations referenced by you, in which you counsel disobedience.

  7. #32
    Everyones Favorite OC'er

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield Hills Michigan
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by Outshined View Post
    Here's one you whiny, question everything, limp noodle people will like:

    PL 240.20 sub 6 Disorderly Conduct.

    He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse.

    Simply stated, If you are standing on Main Street with your "buds" and hanging out, we can tell you to move along. If you don't you can be arrested. I bet that one makes your blood boil. Damn laws.

    Why do most discussions here end up with people throwing verbal childish attacks on others. Even if he is wrong, which I believe he is, it is still just a discussion, no need to get insulting

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    CruiserClass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis IN
    Posts
    5,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Scipio View Post
    That's an interesting little gem. Do you know of anybody who has been arrested and/or prosecuted under that statute?
    Yes.

  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtCHP View Post
    Please return to, and read, my previous posts that QUOTE the law.
    All your previous posts quoted the law referring to lawful order. But so far we did not see the definition of the lawful order, which is exactly the point of disagreement. Your interpretation: it's an order that does not force to violate any law. Mine: it's an order that is directly backed by law. You then make the following claim:
    It is well spelled out that all persons have a duty to comply when given directions by a peace officer or firefighter.
    Perfect; if you name the statute that says that (without the word "lawful" before "directions"), that will be exactly the proof that your definition is right and mine is wrong. So?

    That deals with removing passengers from a vehicle for the purposes of an investigation.
    So what. By your own theory, officer's order applies to everyone, including the passengers.

    For example, here's Seattle Municipal Code

    SMC 11.59.090

    Duty to obey peace officer -- Traffic infraction -- Authority to detain and check for warrants.

    A. Any person requested or signaled to stop by a peace officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

    B. Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person and check for outstanding warrants and, if applicable, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

    C. Any person requested to identify himself to a peace officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of infraction. (RCW 46.61.021)
    =======================

    With my limited knowledge of the law, the above is quite limited scope of the duty to obey peace officer, compared to your infinite version. The person must stop, give name and address, and sign the notice. Nothing else. Thus, only the orders to do those few activities are lawful.
    Last edited by vadimr; 05-05-2010 at 11:10 PM.

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,373
    Wow, kind of surprised me to see this old thread of mine dug up after so long.

  11. #36
    Littering and?
    10-7Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1,154
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    The way I read it, it's unlawful to refuse to comply with the officer's order, signal, or direction provided that order, signal, or direction is directly based on a law. If it's not based on a law, then it does not apply.
    The way you read it does not matter. The way the law enforcement officer reads the law, does.

    If a police officer gives you an order, that is typically not the time to start an argument about the law. It is time to comply. Failure to do so will only escalate the interaction to places you do not wish to go.

    If you want to argue, disobey. Go to court and argue there.

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    3,123
    Quote Originally Posted by L-1 View Post
    I don't know if the term "lawful order" is even found in the wording of the law. In my state all you have to do is willfully resist, delay, or obstruct any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of their office or employment and you're off to jail.

    If I need to clear a sidewalk, stop traffic, evacuate an building, tell someone to halt, lay down, or to put down an object (just to name a few) in order to do my job and they refuse to comply, then there is a violation.
    But if the Officer orders you to decapitate a small child with a "sling blade" (some folks call it a kaiser blade but I allus called it a sling blade) then that is not a lawful order........The way you read it does not matter. The way the law enforcement officer reads the law, does.

    If a police officer gives you an order, that is typically not the time to start an argument about the law. It is time to comply. Failure to do so will only escalate the interaction to places you do not wish to go.

    If you want to argue, disobey. Go to court and argue there.
    If you order me to decapitate a small child with a sling blade, we will argue at the scene..............I guess you will have to taze me bro.The orders of an LEO are not without question..............there are limits to everything, determining them is the issue at hand........


    Bill
    Last edited by willbird; 05-06-2010 at 08:42 AM.
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,952
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    All your previous posts quoted the law referring to lawful order. But so far we did not see the definition of the lawful order, which is exactly the point of disagreement. Your interpretation: it's an order that does not force to violate any law. Mine: it's an order that is directly backed by law. You then make the following claim:

    Perfect; if you name the statute that says that (without the word "lawful" before "directions"), that will be exactly the proof that your definition is right and mine is wrong. So?


    So what. By your own theory, officer's order applies to everyone, including the passengers.

    For example, here's Seattle Municipal Code

    SMC 11.59.090

    Duty to obey peace officer -- Traffic infraction -- Authority to detain and check for warrants.

    A. Any person requested or signaled to stop by a peace officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

    B. Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person and check for outstanding warrants and, if applicable, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

    C. Any person requested to identify himself to a peace officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of infraction. (RCW 46.61.021)
    =======================

    With my limited knowledge of the law, the above is quite limited scope of the duty to obey peace officer, compared to your infinite version. The person must stop, give name and address, and sign the notice. Nothing else. Thus, only the orders to do those few activities are lawful.
    My Father counseled against arguing with certain types of people.
    You, are one of those type people. I should have noted the distinct scent of a troll earlier in your posts.

  14. #39
    Everyones Favorite OC'er

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield Hills Michigan
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by Outshined View Post
    Shut up poopyhead.

    But he started it !!!

  15. #40
    Welp, see ya later!

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    All your previous posts quoted the law referring to lawful order. But so far we did not see the definition of the lawful order, which is exactly the point of disagreement. Your interpretation: it's an order that does not force to violate any law. Mine: it's an order that is directly backed by law. You then make the following claim:

    Perfect; if you name the statute that says that (without the word "lawful" before "directions"), that will be exactly the proof that your definition is right and mine is wrong. So?


    So what. By your own theory, officer's order applies to everyone, including the passengers.

    For example, here's Seattle Municipal Code

    SMC 11.59.090

    Duty to obey peace officer -- Traffic infraction -- Authority to detain and check for warrants.

    A. Any person requested or signaled to stop by a peace officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

    B. Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person and check for outstanding warrants and, if applicable, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

    C. Any person requested to identify himself to a peace officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of infraction. (RCW 46.61.021)
    =======================

    With my limited knowledge of the law, the above is quite limited scope of the duty to obey peace officer, compared to your infinite version. The person must stop, give name and address, and sign the notice. Nothing else. Thus, only the orders to do those few activities are lawful.
    Vad,
    You're being unreasonable and your arguments on this issue are provocative, misguided, and naive - Plain and simple.
    There may NOT be a statute in your state that reads, "all citizens have an explicit duty to obey a law enforcement officer's orders at any time and at any juncture." Here's where your claims lose their footing: It doesn't matter if there isn't a statute that says that.

    The law is written in a manner so that a reasonable person can understand its substance and act accordingly, therefore, not everything that a police officer may or may not do is actually written in stone. This is where case law comes in to play, as the Court may decide to either reaffirm, or bar a particular action taken by a police officer. Take the case you cited for an example. If the Court decided that officers were no longer able to order passengers out of a motor vehicle on a traffic stop at any time, then case law would bar officers from doing so in similar situation. That's CASE LAW - Not statutory law. Needless to say, both are given the same "weight" in the LE world.

    Bottom line, if you feel the need to question a police officer's instructions at any given time, I say only this to you: Roll the dice and take your chances. If you want to spend the tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees in an attempt to overturn the officer's decision to arrest you, then you just have an excellent day, spanky.
    "Peace exists, not simply with the loss of conflict, but with the presence of true justice."

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11
    So, the bottom line of all this argument is exactly the one that has been stated in the original post that started this thread:

    "It's against the law because I just decided to say so."

    ...followed by considerations that whoever will disagree, will spend tens of thousands of dollars to prove otherwise; that "The way you read it does not matter. The way the law enforcement officer reads the law, does" (that's absolutely perfect); plus accusations in counseling disobedience, and host of other similar considerations, all of which boil down to the police officer being able to order whatever he assumes "reasonable" at the moment, and said order automatically becoming "lawful"; and anyone thinking that his order should be backed by the law, being naive and misguided. The comment "Go to court and argue there" is perhaps the most remarkable - apparently, the court is not something an officer takes into account when issuing his order and arresting for not following it.

    Which is actually the perfect answer to the original question: "I'd like to have a better understanding" - in the police mind, and in the police state where this mind is comfortable, there's none, and none is required.

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by CruiserClass View Post
    Yes.
    Well hell, there's got to be a funny story associated with that. Spill the beans already!

  18. #43
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,952
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    So, the bottom line of all this argument is exactly the one that has been stated in the original post that started this thread:

    "It's against the law because I just decided to say so."

    ...followed by considerations that whoever will disagree, will spend tens of thousands of dollars to prove otherwise; that "The way you read it does not matter. The way the law enforcement officer reads the law, does" (that's absolutely perfect); plus accusations in counseling disobedience, and host of other similar considerations, all of which boil down to the police officer being able to order whatever he assumes "reasonable" at the moment, and said order automatically becoming "lawful"; and anyone thinking that his order should be backed by the law, being naive and misguided. The comment "Go to court and argue there" is perhaps the most remarkable - apparently, the court is not something an officer takes into account when issuing his order and arresting for not following it.

    Which is actually the perfect answer to the original question: "I'd like to have a better understanding" - in the police mind, and in the police state where this mind is comfortable, there's none, and none is required.
    At the risk of being banned for a personal attack, you've got to be just about the most uncomprehending individual we've dealt with this week. Your question, and your totally non sensical comments have been answered. Answered more than once, and by more than one person. That said, and in light of the increasing evidence we're dealing with another troll, I really shouldn't be feeding you.

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,352
    old thread dug up. here ya go cut and dried.

    Photographer wants to shoot photos. Wants to stand with the general public- no problem. The SECOND you single them out cause you gotta camera well you got a law suit.
    Now remember if you allow happy Harry to stand there you MUST allow a photographer. The last thing you or your dept needs is to get all macho and put cuffs on a photographer only to not charge them or charge them with bs and have it tossed. Then the photog and their lawyer sue you.
    From what I saw on the tape the producer could have gotten his shots from the side of the entry way. I think he was told not to stand there ( (center) and obstruct.
    He he calls out to a donor and the donor wants to talk that's their right. He does not have to right to get in their face and make them talk.
    Anyone know what the final outcome was of this? Convicted, dropped charges/civil suit, or plea agreement?

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by btfp View Post
    Anyone know what the final outcome was of this? Convicted, dropped charges/civil suit, or plea agreement?
    http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10740674
    The Denver city attorney's office Thursday dismissed charges against ABC News producer Asa Eslocker, who was arrested in front of the Brown Palace Hotel on Aug. 27 while covering the Democratic National Convention.
    (...)
    Recht said that despite their concern, Eslocker and ABC have decided not to take legal action.

  21. #46
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,952
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10740674
    The Denver city attorney's office Thursday dismissed charges against ABC News producer Asa Eslocker, who was arrested in front of the Brown Palace Hotel on Aug. 27 while covering the Democratic National Convention.
    (...)
    Recht said that despite their concern, Eslocker and ABC have decided not to take legal action.
    Hey Pal, let me remind you of an old Police proverb. This one is certain to p..ss you off, and I really hope it does. Ready? And, you're simply going to love this. "You might beat the rap, but you don't beat the ride". As Desi Arnaz used to say, "Let me splain". Go ahead and defy or disobey the order of a Peace Officer. Assert the totally stupid crap you have on this forum. You're gonna get frisked, hooked up, loaded into the back of a patrol car, and have a lovely trip down to the booking cage. You'll then have the opportunity to impress the Judge with your knowledge and insight into the law. He/she is certain to be impressed. So much so, that you'll have a better than average chance of spending time enjoying the hospitality of the city or county, whichever might apply. This little sojourn could very well be in addition to a substantial hit to your pocketbook.

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11
    > Assert the totally stupid crap you have on this forum. You're gonna get frisked, hooked up, loaded into the back of a patrol car, and have a lovely trip down to the booking cage.

    certainly.

    > You'll then have the opportunity to impress the Judge with your knowledge and insight into the law.

    This is unlikely, since one of the two will most likely happen. Either the officer will make up additional charges, most likely assault on officer and resisting arrest; or the charges will be dropped. Prosecuting failure to obey alone is very unusual, and, if I'm not mistaken, the precedent with Canadian writer was very surprising for all parties including the prosecution - and of course accompanied by the "assault" etc.

    All this however is totally offtopic in this thread. The initial question of it was, is there a better definition of the failure to obey lawful order than "I decided to say so". Even if "I said so" is followed by all these consequences you do seem to enjoy, it does not offer any better definition, in fact it only asserts the total absence of it. So pal, if you don't have anything to add to the topic other than hollow threats, then maybe it's good idea to step aside.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,952
    Quote Originally Posted by vadimr View Post
    > Assert the totally stupid crap you have on this forum. You're gonna get frisked, hooked up, loaded into the back of a patrol car, and have a lovely trip down to the booking cage.

    certainly.

    > You'll then have the opportunity to impress the Judge with your knowledge and insight into the law.

    This is unlikely, since one of the two will most likely happen. Either the officer will make up additional charges, most likely assault on officer and resisting arrest; or the charges will be dropped. Prosecuting failure to obey alone is very unusual, and, if I'm not mistaken, the precedent with Canadian writer was very surprising for all parties including the prosecution - and of course accompanied by the "assault" etc.

    All this however is totally offtopic in this thread. The initial question of it was, is there a better definition of the failure to obey lawful order than "I decided to say so". Even if "I said so" is followed by all these consequences you do seem to enjoy, it does not offer any better definition, in fact it only asserts the total absence of it. So pal, if you don't have anything to add to the topic other than hollow threats, then maybe it's good idea to step aside.
    Give it a try, if you're that confident. Then crawl back to the troll-cave.

  24. #49
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,286
    Officer's are granted additional powers because they are sometimes necessitated to properly perform their jobs. In a majority of instances, this is a beneficial thing for society (otherwise they would never have been granted this additional power/responsibility). There are tons of extremely stupid civilians who may need some immediate common sense counseling, like 'No, do no open the door to your house which is on-fire to save your precious poodle.' There will always be isolated incidents where a human will power trip and hand out an unjust 'lawful order' due to nothing more than a petty selfish reason, though I'd like to think these are few and far between. I'd assume most judges would be able to see through these from a mile away. If an officer kept repeatedly bringing in clean record possessing civilians over verbal disobedience of meaningless commands, I'm sure their superiors would take note and respond accordingly.

  25. #50
    Forum Member
    CruiserClass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis IN
    Posts
    5,097
    Perfect example today. We're running through an apartment complex to get a guy who's supposed to have a stolen gun on him. Johnny P. Citizen comes around the corner, sees us converging on a guy with our pistols drawn and him on his knees and wants to watch. Problem is he's about 10 feet from the guy we're taking into custody. I ordered him to get back around the building, and he did.

    That's a lawful command. There's no law that says you can't stand next to a guy who's got a stolen gun on him, but obviously you are endangering yourself, interfering with us as we have to divide our attention, and could possibly end up causing a shoot situation if the guy decides to go Hollywood and try and take a hostage. I have a reasonable need for you to aid me by getting out of the area. Fail to do so and I can arrest you for it.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register