TexasCHLforum.com

yeah, it's me again...

I have a question. I just finished watching some interesting youtube videos of a few confrontations between LEOs (just doing their jobs) and civilians.

On a few of the videos there was mention like, "are you refusing to obey a lawful order?" or "you have been given a lawful order."

I'm just curious as i've never heard this type of terminology outside of military and correctional circles. What exactly does "lawful order" mean and where is the law that compels civilians to comply?

just curious. all i could dig up on google was stuff related to military. I'd like to know what is considered lawful and what not.

That's a hugely complicated topic and I don't know all the answers.

Basically, when an officer tells you to stop, you are under arrest and must do anything lawful that he tells you. That power is given by Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/cr.toc.htm

An officer can ask to speak with you in a public place without making an arrest. You are compelled to identify yourself if asked, but nothing else. He can at that time search you for weapons. That is called a Terry stop.

Also, for a CHL holder, if asked for ID when you are carrying, you must display your driver license and CHL; and the officer can then disarm you.

One of the more interesting aspects of Texas law is that a peace officer can ask a citizen for assistance in an arrest or search, and the citizen has powers similar to a police officer's for the duration. See PC § 9.51.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:That's a hugely complicated topic and I don't know all the answers.

Basically, when an officer tells you to stop, you are under arrest and must do anything lawful that he tells you. That power is given by Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/cr.toc.htm

Not true at all. I do not have to comply with a peace officer if I am placed under arrest other than to not resist the arrest or try to escape. I also must give my name, address and DOB if I am arrested, but that comes under the penal code.


And Peace Officers can only arrest for offenses committed within their view, felonies upon probable cause, and persons found in suspicious places and persons under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony, violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, breach of the peace, or offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws, and certain family violence violations.

There has been much case law on the last section, and it cannot be used as a fishing expedition.

There are other times officers can detain you when you are not under arrest.

An officer can ask to speak with you in a public place without making an arrest. You are compelled to identify yourself if asked, but nothing else.

Again, not true. There is only one instance when a person must identify himself, and that is when arrested. (not counting, of course, when involved in activities requiring licensing like operating a motor vehicle, hunting/fishing, carry a handgun under a CHL, while acting as a security officer, etc).

There are times when it is illegal to falsely identify yourself, like when you have been lawfully detained or the LEO has good cause to believe you are a witness to a crime. However, in those two instances there is no law requiring that you identify.

Texas Penal Code § 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence
address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully
arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a
false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.

He can at that time search you for weapons. That is called a Terry stop.

Sort of. A Terry search requires articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. A LEO cannot just randomly walk up to a person, demand ID and do a Terry Search.

From FINDLAW;

The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to ''specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,'' would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a ''frisk'' was required. 11 Inasmuch as the conduct witnessed by the policeman reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a ''frisk.'' Because the object of the ''frisk'' is the discovery of dangerous weapons, ''it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.'' 12 If, in the course of a weapons frisk, ''plain touch'' reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, the officer may seize that object. Supp.3 The Court viewed the situation as analogous to that covered by the ''plain view'' doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be expanded to determine whether an object is contraband. Supp.4

Also, for a CHL holder, if asked for ID when you are carrying, you must display your driver license and CHL; and the officer can then disarm you.

yeppers, Peace Officer or Magistrate.








There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

Here is a link to the Penal Laws regarding Obstructing Government Operation; http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#38.01.00


This is the closest we have in Texas;

Texas Penal Code
§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
law;
(2) a person who is employed to provide emergency
medical services including the transportation of ill or injured
persons while the person is performing that duty;
(3) a fire fighter, while the fire fighter is fighting
a fire or investigating the cause of a fire;
(4) an animal under the supervision of a peace
officer, corrections officer, or jailer, if the person knows the
animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or
jail security, or investigative purposes;
(5) the transmission of a communication over a
citizen's band radio channel, the purpose of which communication is
to inform or inquire about an emergency; or
(6) an officer with responsibility for animal control
in a county or municipality, while the officer is performing a duty
or exercising authority imposed or granted under Chapter 821 or
822, Health and Safety Code.

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Basically, when an officer tells you to stop, you are under arrest and must do anything lawful that he tells you.

Not true at all. I do not have to comply with a peace officer if I am placed under arrest other than to not resist the arrest or try to escape.

I'm talking about orders such as "get out of the car," "keep your hands in front of you," "put your hands behind your back," etc.

Isn't the arrestee obligated to do what the officer says in those cases?

I'm not talking about orders to polish the officers shoes.

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:An officer can ask to speak with you in a public place without making an arrest. You are compelled to identify yourself if asked, but nothing else.

Again, not true. There is only one instance when a person must identify himself, and that is when arrested. (not counting, of course, when involved in activities requiring licensing

I'm sorry my statement was inaccurate. Most of the people reading this forum are going to encounter the police while driving and be compelled to show their driver license, and CHL if carrying.

When police stop people on foot in a public place, some suspicion already exists, as in the case of Mr. Terry. (I forget which state that occured in.)

txinvestigator wrote:There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

From what I've read in various accounts, in Texas, people who refuse to obey a peace officer end up charged with interfering with official duties or resisting arrest. Of course, to be resisting arrest, the person must have done something warranting arrest. The newspapers are usually fuzzy on the details.

The bottom line for me is that I will obey an order of a peace officer that is not unlawful or dangerous. I won't like it, but I don't want to be arrested or worse.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Basically, when an officer tells you to stop, you are under arrest and must do anything lawful that he tells you.

Not true at all. I do not have to comply with a peace officer if I am placed under arrest other than to not resist the arrest or try to escape.

I'm talking about orders such as "get out of the car," "keep your hands in front of you," "put your hands behind your back," etc.

Isn't the arrestee obligated to do what the officer says in those cases?

I'm not talking about orders to polish the officers shoes.

OMGosh, I nearly spit coffee out on the screen. LOL

I don't see any penal code violation for a person who refuses to do those things. Note I wrote PENAL violations. A person who refuses IS going to have consequences, just no criminal charges. ;)

I suppose a person arrested and refusing to get out of the car could be charged with resisting, but FORCE is an element of resisting.

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:An officer can ask to speak with you in a public place without making an arrest. You are compelled to identify yourself if asked, but nothing else.

Again, not true. There is only one instance when a person must identify himself, and that is when arrested. (not counting, of course, when involved in activities requiring licensing

I'm sorry my statement was inaccurate. Most of the people reading this forum are going to encounter the police while driving and be compelled to show their driver license, and CHL if carrying.

When police stop people on foot in a public place, some suspicion already exists, as in the case of Mr. Terry. (I forget which state that occured in.)

Twas Terry V Ohio. And again, reasonable and articulable suspicion must be present.

txinvestigator wrote:There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

From what I've read in various accounts, in Texas, people who refuse to obey a peace officer end up charged with interfering with official duties or resisting arrest. Of course, to be resisting arrest, the person must have done something warranting arrest. The newspapers are usually fuzzy on the details.

- Jim

An example; If I am smoking (I don't, but we'll pretend) in an area that is not illegal to smoke in, and a LEO orders me to put it out because he wants to talk to me, I don't have to and there is nothing he can charge me with if I don't.

Peace Officers in Texas do not have Parental Authority, and cannot make you do as they please simply because they say so. ;)

If a police officer asks you to do something, with in reason, I think it should be your civic duty to comply. (not talking about shining his shoes either) They have to put up with enough stuff from people without getting the run around from the law abiding as well.

txinvestigator wrote:An example; If I am smoking (I don't, but we'll pretend) in an area that is not illegal to smoke in, and a LEO orders me to put it out because he wants to talk to me, I don't have to and there is nothing he can charge me with if I don't.

Peace Officers in Texas do not have Parental Authority, and cannot make you do as they please simply because they say so. ;)

I understand that. I'll give you some examples of what I'm talking about:

I was walking past a traffic stop once, in daylight. The driver opened the car door. The cop, still in his car, used the loudspeaker to say, "Stay in the car." The citizen continued to get out, and the cop repeated the order more emphatically. The citizen got back in.

(I almost wish he had gotten out, so I could see what would happen.)

Stopping to watch some kind of incident, the police often say something like, "Please move along." Citizens who disobey that order and take photos often find themselves arrested for something. They probably are not convicted of a charge in the long run, but they are arrested.

Crossing police lines at a public event where some space has been roped off, for example, the mayor's reviewing stand. Busted.

In one of those cases in Galveston, the guy was either pepper-sprayed or tasered and charged with numerous offenses. He sued the police. All the charges and counter-charges eventually died out.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:An example; If I am smoking (I don't, but we'll pretend) in an area that is not illegal to smoke in, and a LEO orders me to put it out because he wants to talk to me, I don't have to and there is nothing he can charge me with if I don't.

Peace Officers in Texas do not have Parental Authority, and cannot make you do as they please simply because they say so. ;)

I understand that. I'll give you some examples of what I'm talking about:

I was walking past a traffic stop once, in daylight. The driver opened the car door. The cop, still in his car, used the loudspeaker to say, "Stay in the car." The citizen continued to get out, and the cop repeated the order more emphatically. The citizen got back in.

There is no legal action that be be taken against a person who gets out when told to staty in. Refusing to obey will cause the officer to take his suspicioun of harmful intent by the operator up a notch, and the officer will then change tactics accordingly.

Stopping to watch some kind of incident, the police often say something like, "Please move along." Citizens who disobey that order and take photos often find themselves arrested for something. They probably are not convicted of a charge in the long run, but they are arrested.

Unless your watching or photographing constitutes interference, it would be an unlawful arrest and expose the officer to Federal Civil Rights violations charges.

Crossing police lines at a public event where some space has been roped off, for example, the mayor's reviewing stand. Busted.

There are state and city laws regarding crossing barracades, yes.

Mage34 wrote:If a police officer asks you to do something, with in reason, I think it should be your civic duty to comply. (not talking about shining his shoes either) They have to put up with enough stuff from people without getting the run around from the law abiding as well.

The thread was not about what you should or should not do, the OP was asking about the law;

LedJedi wrote:What exactly does "lawful order" mean and where is the law that compels civilians to comply?

I am a former cop and STRONG supporter or the police. I agree with your assessment of what one SHOULD do.

well that clears it up for me quite nicely. thank you much for the info and opinions.

I was just curious about to what extent I or anyone else could be legally ordered around by a LEO.

utmost respect for LEOs and the like, i'll be the first to say i've seriously thought about going into LE myself. Just curious what the law said and what my civilian responsibilities were.

A LEO cannot just randomly walk up to a person, demand ID and do a Terry Search.

TXI - sure they can - it happens quite often. The key word you left out was "legally" Plus, If I come up to you and asked, "Hey, do you mind showing me some ID and by the way, you don't mind if I check you for weapons do you?" and you say "no problem" then there's really nothing illegal with that. Now if I asked that same question and you replied, "No, that is a problem" and I went forward with it, then an illegal act "might" have occurred unless I had a clearly articulatable (and legitimate) reason for the Terry search.

This is the exact same thing that's involved in our consensual vehicle searches or "knock & talk" residential searches. If I ask permission to search your home or residence you have every legal right to refuse it but it you say "sure - go right ahead" then nothing illegal has taken place. Again, most people think that they have to answer in the affirmative when asked this but they legally don't have to. Lots of criminals that have been arrested know that they don't have to do so because their attorneys from previous arrests have told them not to give permission in the future. By far most of them don't listen very well and continue to give permission.

I like Mage34's response about civic duty. I was raised during a time when we were taught by our parents and others to always obey the police. We never questioned whether something was "legal" or not. We just did it because it seemed the right thing to do. Most people today have not a clue about their "legal rights" but instead have some belief based upon hearsay as to what their "rights" are.

The bottom line - follow the laws, act decent and be civil toward LE and things will probably work out better than you expect.

Like TXI said, if someone gets out of their car, starts walking back toward me, and refuses my commands to stop and return to their vehicle; there's not really anything legally that I can do about that but they're probably going to have more problems than if they would have just gotten back into their car. I usually cut people slack on traffic stops and let them go with a warning unless it's something real egregious, but in this case - someone is probably going to get a ticket, or at the least be further delayed due to me explaining to them why I asked them to remain in their vehicle.

CHL/LEO wrote:

A LEO cannot just randomly walk up to a person, demand ID and do a Terry Search.

TXI - sure they can - it happens quite often. The key word you left out was "legally" Plus, If I come up to you and asked, "Hey, do you mind showing me some ID and by the way, you don't mind if I check you for weapons do you?" and you say "no problem" then there's really nothing illegal with that. Now if I asked that same question and you replied, "No, that is a problem" and I went forward with it, then an illegal act "might" have occurred unless I had a clearly articulatable (and legitimate) reason for the Terry search.

This is the exact same thing that's involved in our consensual vehicle searches or "knock & talk" residential searches. If I ask permission to search your home or residence you have every legal right to refuse it but it you say "sure - go right ahead" then nothing illegal has taken place. Again, most people think that they have to answer in the affirmative when asked this but they legally don't have to. Lots of criminals that have been arrested know that they don't have to do so because their attorneys from previous arrests have told them not to give permission in the future. By far most of them don't listen very well and continue to give permission.

I like Mage34's response about civic duty. I was raised during a time when we were taught by our parents and others to always obey the police. We never questioned whether something was "legal" or not. We just did it because it seemed the right thing to do. Most people today have not a clue about their "legal rights" but instead have some belief based upon hearsay as to what their "rights" are.

The bottom line - follow the laws, act decent and be civil toward LE and things will probably work out better than you expect.

Like TXI said, if someone gets out of their car, starts walking back toward me, and refuses my commands to stop and return to their vehicle; there's not really anything legally that I can do about that but they're probably going to have more problems than if they would have just gotten back into their car. I usually cut people slack on traffic stops and let them go with a warning unless it's something real egregious, but in this case - someone is probably going to get a ticket, or at the least be further delayed due to me explaining to them why I asked them to remain in their vehicle.

Agree......

txinvestigator wrote:I am a former cop and STRONG supporter or the police.

I was beginning to get that drift...

CHL/LEO wrote:...but in this case - someone is probably going to get a ticket, or at the least be further delayed due to me explaining to them why I asked them to remain in their vehicle.

Out of curiosity, what is the gist of such an explanation?

txinvestigator wrote: There is no charge in Texas of "failing to obey a lawful order".

Well, actually there is such a charge, sort of. But it is not in reference to what was under discussion. The proper charge is "Obedience required to police officers", which is the title of section 542.501 of the Transportation Code. It say

"A person may not wilfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of:
(1) a police officer; or ..."

But what it is really referring to is a police officer directing traffic. I bring it up just to show where the language comes from about lawful order.

As for the rest of the question asked by LedJedi, the answer is that it comes from court cases and not the law itself. SCOTUS has ruled that when an officer makes a stop, he can order you out of the car or to stay in it and similar situational control commands. This is supposedly for the safety of the people and the officer. I know it works for the officer, and having seen a drunk step out of his car into traffic, I can see how it works for the driver also. The most recent of these SCOTUS rulings came last month when the court ruled that a passenger was also under arrest. They used the logic that the officer was in charge and could stop him from leaving "for safety reasons" to show that it really was a detention.

If the person did not comply, he might be charged with either hindering arrest, resisting arrest, or interfering with a police officer in the line of his duties, depending on exactly what he did or did not do.

Hmm, if it is a traffic stop, one of these days I might just have to write the ticket for failing to obey and see what happens. After all, the law does not say directing traffic for a cop (it does for a crossing guard). Nahh, I don't like being a test case, even when I am on the side that doesn't face punishment. One of my goals is to go through my career and never have the Supremes hear my name in court.