That was the offense (actually one of several) stated in the report for arresting the little darling after being stopped for speeding.

Refused to step out of his automobile after being asked. Is he resisting arrest or detention?

Sounds like interference with public duties. But why did the officer want the driver out of the car in this case? That will probably matter.

Passive resistance could not justify a charge of resisting arrest/detention. There must be force directed against the officer for resisting arrest.

You can't be arrested for refusing to step out of the vehicle. And there is no such an offense as "failure to obey a lawful order" in Texas. There is such an animal in the military, but not here in Texas.

Okay.

1) Stopped for speeding
2) States he does not have a license
3) Then reaches over the seat and produces one
4) Officer asks driver to step out and he refuses

PC?

Probable Cause for what? That the guy, at first, thought that he had no DL with him, then suddenly remembers that he does, and then he produces it (at least that is what I would argue if I was defense counsel)? What offense is the guy suspected of committing that would justify his being required to exit the vehicle? If the cop arrested the guy for "failure to obey lawful order", then I would expect a Section 1983 suit to be forth coming as there is no such of an offense in Texas, and anything 'discovered' as a result of the guy being removed from his car or from that arrest would be fruit of the poisonous tree.

Is this perhaps what he filed it under?

§ 542.501. OBEDIENCE[0] REQUIRED TO POLICE OFFICERS AND TO
SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS. A person may not wilfully fail or refuse
to comply with a lawful order or direction of:
(1) a police officer; or
(2) a school crossing guard who:
(A) is performing crossing guard duties in a
school crosswalk to stop and yield to a pedestrian; or
(B) has been trained under Section 600.004 and is
directing traffic in a school crossing zone.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 724, § 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999

I agree with Gretch, I think its going to depend on how well your officer articulates his reasons for wanting him out of the vehicle.

RTC are you saying that a police officer can not determine during a traffic stop if the driver stays in the car or comes out ???

What if the driver stops in an area where it is dangerous for the officer to stand next to the driver's door, what if its nighttime and not a well lit area and there are multiple people in the vehicle and the officer feels for his safety he needs to remove the driver....

I like interference w/ duties.

I believe the statute pertains to the officer as he / she is directing traffic. No just the obeying of the officer's orders in general because the statute mentions school crossing guards, which have traffic direction authority. Such a reading would allow an officer to have far more discretion than is appropriate or constitutional.

If a cop tells me to get out of my car and I don't want to, what can he do? What could he arrest me for? As long as I am willing to sign the promise to appear, I am free to sit in my car. Now if the officer wants to do a Terry search, that is another thing. But then he had better have some articulable facts otherwise he's in for trouble.

You know, not every contact with an officer must be treated as the last step before an invasion by Germany.

Why not examine this with a bit more empathy for the point of view of the officer? How would you like it if your job required you to deliver bad news to total strangers who came to you in a vehicle? You don't get to know if they are armed, upset, deranged or just plain evil. Doesn't seem like too much of a request to ask them to stand outside of their vehicle while meeting with the officer. A minor inconvenience that has a substantial effect on the safety of the officer. So, as a society, do we have a greater value for our personal convenience or the safety of a human being?

And the Supreme Court agreed with the officer in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977).

[This message was edited by JB on 07-01-07 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 07-01-07 at .]

All I can say is I'm glad my husband is not an officer in RTCs county !

While I agree 542.501 COULD be read too broadly (of course it does say a lawful order so there goes your constitutional issue), to say that it only applys to directing traffic seems too limited. If that were the case why would it not limit it to that specific offense and considering its placement in Title 7 of the TTC it would therefore logically apply to circumstances in Title 7 unless otherwise resticted which of course includes speeding.

And as Gretchen and I have pointed out before, IWD would be what he could be arrested for

[This message was edited by Stacey L. Brownlee on 07-01-07 at .]

What exactly is a lawful order issued by a peace officer?

Must citizens obey any order from an officer as long as the order is not unlawful?

This is not the same thing as a lawful order of a court.

Any order that is supported by the facts and the law. An officer, for example, may order a person to step out of a car if he has viewed probable cause for a traffic offense and needs additional information from the person. An officer may not simply stop a car and order a person out without having viewed any activities justifying the stop.

The Penal Code defines "Law" to include the constitution, a statute, an opinion of a court, a municipal ordinance, an order of a county court or a rule adopted pursuant to a statute.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the Fourth Amendment, has opined that an officer may order a person from a vehicle during a traffic stop to obtain additional information. That would be a lawful order.

I'm confused as to why there is so much outrage about being asked to step out of a car--and cursorily frisked to make sure you are not armed.

The law is clear that an officer can frisk someone while conducting a traffic stop....and needs no particular facts from that person other than he is in a vehicle being lawfully detained for investigation of a traffic violation. It's not the same as stopping someone's car for nothing....the driver has already committed a violation, and how many more officers need to get shot by crazies while merely trying to give out traffic citations before all the people shouting "constitutional violation" get a clue? How is a pat down during a traffic stop unreasonable in this day and age?

I suppose we should also sit on airplanes next to total strangers who have not been through metal detectors--no articulable facts, of course. And people should come and go as they please in our courthouses without metal detectors--no articulable facts, again.

key v. state was an interference with public duties case where a police officer ordered an aggressive man to simply stand on a sidewalk, which he refused to do. (key was charged with refusing to obey the lawful orders and directives of a police officer who was performing a duty authorized by law). berret v. state was another intereference with a public duties case where a defendant refused to allow himself to be handcuffed by repeatedly moving his arm out of the way. these both seem like pretty small "orders" from police, but when they refused to comply by either stepping off the sidewalk or refusing to be handcuffed, that got in the way of the officer performing his lawful duty to preserve the peace. seems that the courts are okay with giving officers some leeway in these type of high-pressure moments.

I have five or six cases on interference...some more strenuous than others, but usually have to do with refusing to follow instructions while officers tried to investigate. If you e-mail me at suzanne.jost@co.kendall.tx.us I will send them to you. I think the Key case referred to above is one of them.

Are these cases still valid as to the question at hand?

Penn. v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)- Drivers
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)- Others

quote:

---

The law is clear that an officer can frisk someone while conducting a traffic stop....and needs no particular facts from that person other than he is in a vehicle being lawfully detained for investigation of a traffic violation.

---

I don't think I agree with this statement, at least as far as routine traffic stops are concerned.
See Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 118 (1998) (officer may "perform a 'patdown' of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous") (emphasis added);
U.S. v. McKoy, 428 F.3d 38, 39 (1st Cir. 2005) ("It is insufficient that the [traffic] stop itself is valid; there must be a separate analysis of whether the standard for pat-frisks has been met.")

My thoughts exactly. Though I failed to articulate the citation in my earlier post above, that was the point that I was trying to make.

Did anyone run this buy Scooter Libby?