New Law Makes it Unlawful to Refuse to Comply with Police - St. Charles City

http://stcharles.patch.com/articles/new-law-makes-it-unlawful-to-refuse-to-comply-with-police

Not sure how I missed this little tidbit. I'm getting slack in my dotage.

SECTION 215.630: RESISTING OR INTERFERING WITH ARREST, DETENTION OR STOP
SECTION 215.635: UNLAWFUL TO REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH POLICE (not posted on the city website yet)

This is not good. Any folks around St. Charles needs to be extra vigilant when out and about.

I don't expect that to pass judicial muster, but I'm not volunteering...

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

kcgunfan said:

I don't expect that to pass judicial muster, but I'm not volunteering...

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Don't bet on it .. in Indiana their supreme court opinioned just a result .. the legislature had to re-write the law. And that case for for cops illegally gaining access to a guy's home.

OC for ME said:

http://stcharles.patch.com/articles/new-law-makes-it-unlawful-to-refuse-to-comply-with-police

Not sure how I missed this little tidbit. I'm getting slack in my dotage.

SECTION 215.630: RESISTING OR INTERFERING WITH ARREST, DETENTION OR STOP
SECTION 215.635: UNLAWFUL TO REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH POLICE (not posted on the city website yet)

This is not good. Any folks around St. Charles needs to be extra vigilant when out and about.

Click to expand...

It does say LAWFUL ORDER ....

Actually SCOTUS case law exist, resisting unlawful arrest up to and including deadly force is legal.


This law along with a host of others is a bogus law designed with such a small penalty that no one will find a lawyer to recommend fighting it as it will cost a lot more than it will to plead it out.

These types of laws are specifically designed to circumvent liberty and the constitution that protects that liberty.

Perhaps they could just prosecute the morons fighting and bothering folks instead of "regulating" the already responsible it would be better. Seems to me all of these calls would be violations already so why the need for a new law?

davidmcbeth said:

It does say LAWFUL ORDER ....

Click to expand...

Ah.....true, until a judge tells the nitwit cop that his order was not lawful. This is the point. This law does not define what a lawful order is, but it does allow a cop to use this law to give a order in the hopes that a judge will go along and make that order lawful for future use.

Remember, 215.630 defines what a citizen does as unlawful behavior. 215.635 now gives the cops the ability to order you to do or not do something on penalty of violating 215.630.

SECTION 215.560: ATTEMPT

A. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense, ordinance violation or unlawful act when, with the purpose of committing the offense, ordinance violation or unlawful act, he/she does any act which is a substantial step towards the commission of the offense. A "substantial step" is conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's purpose to complete the commission of the offense.

B. It is no defense to a prosecution under this Section that the offense, ordinance violation or unlawful act attempted was, under the actual attendant circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission, if such offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be.

SECTION 215.630: RESISTING OR INTERFERING WITH ARREST, DETENTION OR STOP

A. A person commits the offense of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention or stop if, knowing that a Law Enforcement Officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a Law Enforcement Officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:

....blah blah blah....

D. It is no defense to a prosecution under Subsection (A) of this Section that the Law Enforcement Officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this Section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.

http://z2codes.sullivanpublications.com/sullivan/Z2Browser2.html?showset=stcharlesset

Click to expand...

It is a sad day for liberty minded citizens.

When will our State legislators get it that these out of control municipalities are enacting ordinances at their own level that impact the entire State? What that municipality is now saying, "Your rights be damned!" Fine, I'm immediately refusing to talk to police and following State law if I'm in that area. It's a problem municipality anyway when it comes to their overzealous LEOs and this will just encourage frivolous stops to start occurring more often in clear violation of the law. Can you say "color of law"?

davidmcbeth said:

It does say LAWFUL ORDER ....

Click to expand...

I hope you're aware that LEOs are allowed to lie to YOU, per SCOTUS, as part of their investigation into anything. Then when you get to court they're "honorable" and in some cases "experts" and their word will almost always be taken over yours. Of course, then there's the misconception of what constitutes a lawful order, and it's not just because a LEO says it is so.

When things are stacked like this against the citizen before they ever get to court why on earth would anyone want to answer a LEOs questions? LEOs know in advance that things are automatically stacked against the citizen, some just refuse to recognize it. The reason we spout to LEOs is because humans feel the need to justify their actions and to do so they must communicate. That old phrase that I've used for years, "Everyone has a story to tell; it's my job to get them to tell it to me." Now consider where we as humans were conditioned to provide such a justification. It happens in the family environment when we're rather young. Your parents may have asked you why you did something so you understand what was wrong with what you might have done. Sound familiar to anyone?

It's how a LEO asking the questions in the right manner can literally fall into crap...ie become a turd-magnet.

REALteach4u said:

I hope you're aware that LEOs are allowed to lie to YOU, per SCOTUS, as part of their investigation into anything. Then when you get to court they're "honorable" and in some cases "experts" and their word will almost always be taken over yours. Of course, then there's the misconception of what constitutes a lawful order, and it's not just because a LEO says it is so.

When things are stacked like this against the citizen before they ever get to court why on earth would anyone want to answer a LEOs questions? LEOs know in advance that things are automatically stacked against the citizen, some just refuse to recognize it. The reason we spout to LEOs is because humans feel the need to justify their actions and to do so they must communicate. That old phrase that I've used for years, "Everyone has a story to tell; it's my job to get them to tell it to me." Now consider where we as humans were conditioned to provide such a justification. It happens in the family environment when we're rather young. Your parents may have asked you why you did something so you understand what was wrong with what you might have done. Sound familiar to anyone?

It's how a LEO asking the questions in the right manner can literally fall into crap...ie become a turd-magnet.

Click to expand...

Good post! It bears reminding "anything you say can and will be used against you". Nothing you say will be used for you. This is America, without RAS you do not have to provide "papers". You are free, review soem of the youtube videos on your "rights", they are really very good. Many good ones can be found on the Wisconsin open carry site.

I feel alot of people are missing the point of this law.

The idea of it is to not start a fight on the side of a road, sidewalk, whatever. If you are correct that a LEO is unlawfully stopping you, the time to fight it is not on the side of the road. There is a chance somebody will not make it home. Even moreso when you involve two firearms.

Because you are so sure of yourself on your rights, argue it in court and go home with a hunk of change. Getting yourself injured or dead is not a way to prove a point.

I agree that the side of the road is not the best place to argue law, However....

At what point, after you sue the City, County, Municipality, whatever, do the Taxpayers (who ultimately are funding this insanity) say WAITADAMNMINIT.....?

Is there any point when the people who have to pay these thousands of dollars in lawsuits expect the officers CAUSING these lost cases to KNOW the law, to KNOW that what they are doing is wrong?

xd shooter said:

I agree that the side of the road is not the best place to argue law, However....

At what point, after you sue the City, County, Municipality, whatever, do the Taxpayers (who ultimately are funding this insanity) say WAITADAMNMINIT.....?

Is there any point when the people who have to pay these thousands of dollars in lawsuits expect the officers CAUSING these lost cases to KNOW the law, to KNOW that what they are doing is wrong?

Click to expand...

Thats a GREAT point. I cant find alot of cases in which the officer was found to be acting illegally, agaisnt policy and not fired. There are lots of cases in which the officer was acting unconstitionally however acting lawfully and within policy. Those are the cases you see that the officer does not get repremanded. That is an issue with state legislation and police administrations. NOT the officer.

The sad part about of when do the taxpayers "wake up" is typically after a tragedy such as Colorado Shooting, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Rodney King, Etc. Sad, but true.

QilvinLEO said:

I feel alot of people are missing the point of this law.

The idea of it is to not start a fight on the side of a road, sidewalk, whatever. If you are correct that a LEO is unlawfully stopping you, the time to fight it is not on the side of the road. There is a chance somebody will not make it home. Even moreso when you involve two firearms.

Because you are so sure of yourself on your rights, argue it in court and go home with a hunk of change. Getting yourself injured or dead is not a way to prove a point.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is endorsing "starting a fight on the side of the road" with anyone, especially an unpredictable, unaccountable person with a gun. Actually, you seem to be the one consistently mentioning it. I'd hate to think you were planting ideas with hopes of someone getting hurt. Or worse.

Fuller Malarkey said:

I don't think anyone here is endorsing "starting a fight on the side of the road" with anyone, especially an unpredictable, unaccountable person with a gun. Actually, you seem to be the one consistently mentioning it. I'd hate to think you were planting ideas with hopes of someone getting hurt. Or worse.

Click to expand...

A basically worthless post. What do you consider somebody backing away from an officer yelling "Your breaking my rights". If the officer is sure they are being lawful, an arrest is about to happen. If the subject continues to express his rights and struggle, you got a fight on your hands.

Here is some thought for you.

Resisting or interfering with arrest--penalty.
575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:

(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or

(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.

2. This section applies to:

(1) Arrests, stops, or detentions, with or without warrants;

(2) Arrests, stops, or detentions, for any crime, infraction, or ordinance violation; and

(3) Arrests for warrants issued by a court or a probation and parole officer.

3. A person is presumed to be fleeing a vehicle stop if that person continues to operate a motor vehicle after that person has seen or should have seen clearly visible emergency lights or has heard or should have heard an audible signal emanating from the law enforcement vehicle pursuing that person.

4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.




So your still resisting arrest even if the arrest is unlawful. You will be charged with that, but make some money in civil court.

QilvinLEO said:

A basically worthless post. What do you consider somebody backing away from an officer yelling "Your breaking my rights". If the officer is sure they are being lawful, an arrest is about to happen. If the subject continues to express his rights and struggle, you got a fight on your hands.

Here is some thought for you.

Resisting or interfering with arrest--penalty.
575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:

(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or

(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.

2. This section applies to:

(1) Arrests, stops, or detentions, with or without warrants;

(2) Arrests, stops, or detentions, for any crime, infraction, or ordinance violation; and

(3) Arrests for warrants issued by a court or a probation and parole officer.

3. A person is presumed to be fleeing a vehicle stop if that person continues to operate a motor vehicle after that person has seen or should have seen clearly visible emergency lights or has heard or should have heard an audible signal emanating from the law enforcement vehicle pursuing that person.

4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.




So your still resisting arrest even if the arrest is unlawful. You will be charged with that, but make some money in civil court.

Click to expand...

Because of this some states have started enacting laws to allow resisting unlawful orders from police, up to and including lethal force. Signed into law in Indiana , http://www.guns.com/indiana-gov-mitch-daniels-signs-right-to-resist-police-bill-law-6695.html Indiana's law is for your property, I believe other states have enacted variances on this law.I am not condoning the shooting of police officers.

xdmcompact said:

Because of this some states have started enacting laws to allow resisting unlawful orders from police, up to and including lethal force. Signed into law in Indiana , http://www.guns.com/indiana-gov-mitch-daniels-signs-right-to-resist-police-bill-law-6695.html Indiana's law is for your property, I believe other states have enacted variances on this law.I am not condoning the shooting of police officers.

Click to expand...

I believe that the point of such a law is to resist when not resisting may lead to an arrest where you have reason to believe you will be hurt or killed. I doubt there is any judge who will allow you to walk away from a resisting arrest when no reason to believe that you are in mortal danger exists.

But I am just guessing, IANAL.

QilvinLEO said:

A basically worthless post. What do you consider somebody backing away from an officer yelling "Your breaking my rights". If the officer is sure they are being lawful, an arrest is about to happen. If the subject continues to express his rights and struggle, you got a fight on your hands.

Here is some thought for you.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not going to agree the post was worthless.

your position is one thought of a person who works in the trenches daily and it sounds like you pride yourself in doing a top shelf job while respecting the rights of all persons, a very good position you should be commended for and I do so as I type.

The problems with such laws do not exist with officers such as yourself, it is the ones who tend to use said laws to flirt with and exceed their authority.

Without any doubt the officer training is designed to capitalize on citizens NOT knowing their rights and gaining consent. Lots of officers use such things as fishing expeditions. This can lead the officer to a point he has RAS or PC when pretty much if the citizen had understood their own rights, never would have happened. Some of us wonder if this is why such things as civics and liberty and the law have been removed from most public schools.

You then have the great debate over the 20 hour hold (24, but you know the drill) they tried to extend to 48 hours. And YES, these are LEGISLATIVE problems, but and it is a big BUT, some officers will see these as TOOLS to intimidate and elicit consent etc.

When a person OC’s, they come into way too much contact with LEO’s, all of them, including yourself if you have ever been dispatched on such a call. If a person is OC’ing in an area where OC is legal, it should be a total NONISSUE. The “need to respond” to a MWG call really does not exist if the dispatch simply asked, are they pointing the gun at anyone? And if the response is no, it is in a holster, then you can continue with other duties that are more important. More importantly, there is no disruption to an honest citizens life.

Are all OC’ers honest citizens? Can’t say myself, but I have yet to have an officer I have asked answer “yes” to the “have you ever arrested a criminal with a gun that was not hiding it?” question. Perhaps at some point Leo’s and honest citizens can come together and communicate effectively, but by and large as it sits now, the average response from an officer regarding OC remains less than positive with only a few persons such as yourself even showing minimal respect let alone being an active supporter.

QilvinLEO, it is your "ya ya buddy.....whatever, how about we let the judge work it out.....watch your head." attitude that is the root cause of a great many issues between the citizenry and LE.

Any cop that "punts to the judge" is no friend of liberty. You also seem to be pretty fast and loose with the tax payer's money.