Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 94

Thread: Is it always a crime to disobey police officer's order in Michigan?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    I wonder if a person must follow order from a police officer regardless if order is lawful or not? Am I braking a law (charge would be "disobeying police order", I presume) if I am audio or video recording in a public place, and police officer orders me to stop recording and I refuse? Did I brake Michigan Law and can now be arrested?

    I presume, there must be a limit to what order a citizen must obey. What if police orders me to completely undress (including underwear)? Will I be breaking the law if I refuse? This is a ridiculous example, but I wanted to drive the point.

    Can anyone site specific laws about legality/illegality of disobeying unlawful police orders?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    There is a difference between asking bluntly, and ordering. I'm not sure where the limit is, but they will make you if they can.

    If they can search you or your house or car, they will, they won't ask. If they can't legally, they'll be likely to ask you to let them search.

    If your unsure, ask them if its an "order" or a "Request". It's better to say no, nothing at all, or i will not resist nor consent to anything.


    Check out

    http://flexyourrights.org/

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    If I refused a clearly unlawful order, did I brake the law? This is what I am trying to understand

  4. #4
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    The only thing I have found so far is, well, not much. :257.602, and 750.479a.
    Both of these laws state basically that a failure to obey an order from a police officer to stop a motor vehicle...yadda yadda...

    I wonder if these laws are abused in a similar manner to that of the "brandishing" law in the past?


    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...0AND%20conduct


    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...%20AND%20order


    I found this only after a brief search. There may or may not be more to it. I strongly doubt that it is legal for an officer to make an order that requires unlawful action on your part. I would imagine that there would be some major consequences to be paid by such an officer.
    If you are being detained, your freedom is being interfered with, and you are somewhat subject to the whims of the officer. If you are not being legally detained, you are under no obligation to "obey" an order. This is my understanding, take it as you will.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    If you disobey an unlawful police order, all i can say is "...Dont taze me. DONT TAZE ME BRO!"

    Make sure if you are going to disobey an unlawful police order, to find a soft spot to fall first before your tazed or beat.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    I also found this:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5f24fr55hxxj4prkzoo5axbp))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-479

    Interesting that it defines "obstruction as": (a) “Obstruct” includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

    So the command by officer must be "lawful". Otherwise citizen has the right not to comply with command. This is my understanding.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338

    Post imported post

    THway wrote:
    If you disobey an unlawful police order, all i can say is "...Dont taze me. DONT TAZE ME BRO!"

    Make sure if you are going to disobey an unlawful police order, to find a soft spot to fall first before your tazed or beat.
    Sure, I understand. But, this is not a point of my question. I want to understand if I broke Michigan Law by disobeying unlawful order from a police officer?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    I also found this:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5f24fr55hxxj4prkzoo5axbp))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-479

    Interesting that it defines "obstruction as": (a) “Obstruct” includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

    So the command by officer must be "lawful". Otherwise citizen has the right not to comply with command. This is my understanding.
    yep. i b'leive so

    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    well i know that we have discussed this here before, but one has the right to resist unlawful arrest.

    IF you want a straight forward answer, CALL the MSP HQ in Lansing and ask them. Just remember, when they answer, also ask for the MCL that goes with their answers.

    Then call the AG, and ask the same questions.

  10. #10
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    You can resist an unlawful arrest, so I would imagine you could resist an unlawful order. Proving both can be difficult. I would say that if you have not been stopped lawfully you are ok to not respond to his order.

  11. #11
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    You can resist an unlawful arrest, so I would imagine you could resist an unlawful order. Proving both can be difficult. I would say that if you have not been stopped lawfully you are ok to not respond to his order.
    just asking this out of boredom and to start a nice POLITE debate amongst ourselves.

    if they unlawfully detained you for OC and drew they're weapon,legally would you be able to defend yourself? meaning at least drawing.

    then citizens arrest the officer,order him to set down his weapon,have him charged for brandishing? and i think there is a pointing charge too.

    remember,not a serious question,just to cause a polite debate with everyone!
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  12. #12
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,846

    Post imported post

    Unfortunatly it sounds like a good way to commit suicide by cop
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  13. #13
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    lol,regardless of that...
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  14. #14
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290

    Post imported post

    lil_freak_66 wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    You can resist an unlawful arrest, so I would imagine you could resist an unlawful order. Proving both can be difficult. I would say that if you have not been stopped lawfully you are ok to not respond to his order.
    just asking this out of boredom and to start a nice POLITE debate amongst ourselves.

    if they unlawfully detained you for OC and drew they're weapon,legally would you be able to defend yourself? meaning at least drawing.

    then citizens arrest the officer,order him to set down his weapon,have him charged for brandishing? and i think there is a pointing charge too.

    remember,not a serious question,just to cause a polite debate with everyone!
    In reality you'd never be able to do it. In the fantastical world of what is actually right you should be able to make a citizen's (felony) arrest of the officer for assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. Brandishing is not a felony and therefore you cannot make a citizen's arrest.

  15. #15
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    i think its onlya matter of time before somebody somewhere does it,or something similar. a test case ruling in our favor could potentially stop just about all unlawful OC detainments.



    say...the guy from tennesse (kwirknu?) with the blaze orange AK pistol that runs around in bdu's seems like the type to do it,i feel he takes what some call "OC extremism" to a whole new level.

    he is a nice guy though mostly from what ive read.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  16. #16
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    TheSzerdi wrote:
    lil_freak_66 wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    You can resist an unlawful arrest, so I would imagine you could resist an unlawful order. Proving both can be difficult. I would say that if you have not been stopped lawfully you are ok to not respond to his order.
    just asking this out of boredom and to start a nice POLITE debate amongst ourselves.

    if they unlawfully detained you for OC and drew they're weapon,legally would you be able to defend yourself? meaning at least drawing.

    then citizens arrest the officer,order him to set down his weapon,have him charged for brandishing? and i think there is a pointing charge too.

    remember,not a serious question,just to cause a polite debate with everyone!
    In reality you'd never be able to do it. In the fantastical world of what is actually right you should be able to make a citizen's (felony) arrest of the officer for assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. Brandishing is not a felony and therefore you cannot make a citizen's arrest.
    the law reads a person may resist an arrest up to, but not including using deadly force. Misdemeanor arrest can be made when summoned by an officer to assist in making an arrest.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Pickerington, OH
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    sasha601 wrote:
    If I refused a clearly unlawful order, did I brake the law? This is what I am trying to understand
    Well for one you can claim you don't speak English since its BREAK not brake.

    But no one ever said anyone from Michigan was as smart as those from Ohio lol :celebrate

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Between the Soo and New Buffalo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    There's lots of bad/wrong legal advice on this forum and it's sad that some people on here have such an adversarial attitude toward law enforcement. I hope I can dispel some of that. However, there are several on this forum who go out of there way to screw with me, namely this PAT person (look under the Ponderosa thread).

    I want to help and will answer questions as honestly as I can, but it's tough to do with a guy like this PAT and a few others.

    Also, there are lots of "internet lawyers" on this board. Those guys usually get themselves into lots of legal problems and cost others who follow there advice. I see some good advice on here, but not much......mostly just a bunch of "internet lawyers" who try to get others to screw with the police. The first improper assumption is that there are a bunch of cops out there who want to take away or violate your constitutional rights when the reality is, most people become cops because they are very conservative and cherish those rights. What they don't like is criminals and people who act like ******** toward them. Act like an ******* and you might as well attach a sign on your back to attract police attention. (asserting your rights politely does not equal being an ******* btw).


  19. #19
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Hombre1 wrote:
    There's lots of bad/wrong legal advice on this forum and it's sad that some people on here have such an adversarial attitude toward law enforcement. I hope I can dispel some of that. However, there are several on this forum who go out of there way to screw with me:shock:, namely this PAT person (look under the Ponderosa thread).

    I want to help and will answer questions as honestly as I can, but it's tough to do with a guy like this PAT and a few others.

    Also, there are lots of "internet lawyers" on this board (so it's not Illegal). Those guys usually get themselves into lots of legal problems (It's called the Darwin Theory) and cost others who follow there advice (No one told them to follow). I see some good advice on here, but not much......mostly just a bunch of "internet lawyers" (again it's legal) who try to get others to screw with the police. The first improper assumption (there are proper Assumptions?) is that there are a bunch of cops out there who want to take away or violate your constitutional rights (There are I've seen the Video) when the reality is, most people become cops because they are very conservative and cherish those rights(doubt it). What they don't like is criminals (Good) and people who act like @#$%s toward them (you don't get instant respect from the uniform). Act like an @#$% and you might as well attach a sign on your back to attract police attention. (asserting your rights politely does not equal being an @#$% btw).

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Between the Soo and New Buffalo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    CrossPistols wrote:
    Hombre1 wrote:
    There's lots of bad/wrong legal advice on this forum and it's sad that some people on here have such an adversarial attitude toward law enforcement. I hope I can dispel some of that. However, there are several on this forum who go out of there way to screw with me:shock:, namely this PAT person (look under the Ponderosa thread).

    I want to help and will answer questions as honestly as I can, but it's tough to do with a guy like this PAT and a few others.

    Also, there are lots of "internet lawyers" on this board (so it's not Illegal). Those guys usually get themselves into lots of legal problems (It's called the Darwin Theory) and cost others who follow there advice (No one told them to follow). I see some good advice on here, but not much......mostly just a bunch of "internet lawyers" (again it's legal) who try to get others to screw with the police. The first improper assumption (there are proper Assumptions?) is that there are a bunch of cops out there who want to take away or violate your constitutional rights (There are I've seen the Video) when the reality is, most people become cops because they are very conservative and cherish those rights(doubt it). What they don't like is criminals (Good) and people who act like @#$%s toward them (you don't get instant respect from the uniform). Act like an @#$% and you might as well attach a sign on your back to attract police attention. (asserting your rights politely does not equal being an @#$% btw).
    Serious question, here. Are some of you guys "cop wanna-bes"? Because your hostility toward the police makes it seem like the real issue is you want to be a lawman or something. Just curious.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,543

    Post imported post

    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

  22. #22
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I'm retired federal law enforcement!, thou when I was a LEO I was trained to Protect, Assist, & Defend, my community,
    I was taught Codes, & Conducts. I was taught that I was not above the Law, and that I set the standards, and any negative thing i did on duty, or off duty, was a black eye to me, and two black eyes to the LE establishment.

    So do I have some hostilities against this modern day LE YES!



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,851

    Post imported post

    Hombre1 wrote:
    CrossPistols wrote:
    Hombre1 wrote:
    There's lots of bad/wrong legal advice on this forum and it's sad that some people on here have such an adversarial attitude toward law enforcement.* I hope I can dispel some of that.* However, there are several on this forum who go out of there way to screw with me:shock:, namely this PAT person (look under the Ponderosa thread).

    I want to help and will answer questions as honestly as I can, but it's tough to do with a guy like this PAT and a few others.

    Also, there are lots of "internet lawyers" on this board (so it's not Illegal).* Those guys usually get themselves into lots of legal problems (It's called the Darwin Theory) and cost others who follow there advice (No one told them to follow).* I see some good advice on here, but not much......mostly just a bunch of "internet lawyers" (again it's legal) who try to get others to screw with the police.* The first improper assumption (there are proper Assumptions?) is that there are a bunch of cops out there who want to take away or violate your constitutional rights (There are I've seen the Video) when the reality is, most people become cops because they are very conservative and cherish those rights(doubt it).* What they don't like is criminals (Good) and people who act like @#$%s toward them (you don't get instant respect from the uniform).* Act like an @#$% and you might as well attach a sign on your back to attract police attention.* (asserting your rights politely does not equal being an @#$% btw).
    Serious question, here.* Are some of you guys "cop wanna-bes"?** Because your hostility toward the police makes it seem like the real issue is you want to be a lawman or something.* Just curious.
    Well look at Lansing and Battle Creek PDs for example both of which who now have IA on their backs because of their lack of understanding on how not to violate peoples rights. You might want to watch http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?vi...ang_in_America then tell us why people are weary when it comes to "trusting" police. Trust is earned not granted because of a uniform. You treat me right I treat you right it's not a one sided thing.

  24. #24
    Regular Member CrossPistols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mundy Twp. Charter Member, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Thanks Mike...Well said.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    Hombre1 wrote:
    Serious question, here. Are some of you guys "cop wanna-bes"? Because your hostility toward the police makes it seem like the real issue is you want to be a lawman or something. Just curious.
    Serious question, here. Are you an OC wanna-be, because your hostility toward the OC community makes it seem like the real issue is that you want to have the nads to assert your rights, or something. Just curious.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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