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

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)

Click to expand...

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!

:cuss:

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:uhoh:.

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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?video_id=7086&title=The_Largest_Street_Gang_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.

imported post

Thanks Mike...Well said.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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:uhoh:.

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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

No, really, we just have a disdain for criminals whether they are non-LEO OR LEO. The only difference to me is that I recognize that most criminals don't swear an oath to protect and defend before starting their crimes. So yes they are by that fact, held under a brighter light.springerdave.

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Huh? I've been open carrying both on and off duty for 25+ years. I don't get your comment.

imported post

it's called SARCASM!

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

 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!

:cuss:

Click to expand...

So.....do you now somehow hold yourself as self-righteous and believe you are the only cop out there who holds those beliefs?

imported post

If you were paying attention...I'm retired!

Politics/Policies ruined the Police Officer!

To answer your loaded Question, No! I considered myself Honored to Serve!

imported post

The fact thatI amtrying to discuss situations whereI might encounter a "bad" cop does not mean thatI amconsidering that all cops are bad. If I only have 2-3% chanceof running into a cop who does not respect my rights, I consider this probability high enough to discuss my option on this forum. I want tofully understand my legal rights and responsibilities. If I feel that the officer treats me with respect if I encounter one, then no issues. But, if I ever run into one that does not, then I will do whatever is in my power under circumstances to gather as much evidence as possible against such a cop with hiddenaudi/video devices that are capable transmittinglive to a secureremotelocation. I will, then pull no stops to go after such an officer and his PD. And, this is good. Because this is what responsible citizen should do to minimize police (and goverment in general) corruption. In no way this conduct should impede law ienforcement capability to go after real criminals.

By the way, I think PDs should take "bad apples" in their departments very seriously these days to reduce liability.Modern audio/videodevices are getting smaller and cheaper, easier to conceal. Ability to transmit and record remotely in live mode is extremely important because it minimizes chances that LEO can forcefully remove devices from you and erase what already is recorded. Again, this talk is not an evidence that I consider all cops bad. It is just we have enough bad cops to justify protecting ouselvesHombre1 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, 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 @#$%s toward them. Act like an @#$% 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).

Click to expand...

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

If you were paying attention...I'm retired!

Politics/Policies ruined the Police Officer!

To answer your loaded Question, No! I considered myself Honored to Serve!

Click to expand...

Not so, bad people masquerading as cops ruined the "Police Officer".springerdave.

edit to add: Thank you, CrossPistols, for your Honorable service!

imported post

springerdave wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

If you were paying attention...I'm retired!

Politics/Policies ruined the Police Officer!

To answer your loaded Question, No! I considered myself Honored to Serve!

Click to expand...

Not so, bad people masquerading as cops ruined the "Police Officer".springerdave.

Click to expand...

Please. People have been "down on" cops forever. Look at history. Look at the Bible. Everybody wants laws enforced.....just not on themselves. Tell people to quit calling 911 every time somebody sees a guy with a gun and the police won't show up. That simple. Don't expect the police to educate the public on OC, you guys are the ones open carrying weapons. You do the educating AND try to sell your OC to the public.

imported post

sasha601 wrote:

I wonder if a person must follow order from a police officer regardless if order is lawful or not?

Click to expand...

can you cite to an Michigan law requiring you to obey police orders in the first place?

I'm serious - why assume this? Obviously the police have the power to deain on reasonable suspicion and arrest or warrant or an exception to the warrant exception and use force to do so - but generally can the police give orders in Michigan?

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

springerdave wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

If you were paying attention...I'm retired!

Politics/Policies ruined the Police Officer!

To answer your loaded Question, No! I considered myself Honored to Serve!

Click to expand...

Not so, bad people masquerading as cops ruined the "Police Officer".springerdave.

Click to expand...

Please. People have been "down on" cops forever. Look at history. Look at the Bible. Everybody wants laws enforced.....just not on themselves. Tell people to quit calling 911 every time somebody sees a guy with a gun and the police won't show up. That simple. Don't expect the police to educate the public on OC, you guys are the ones open carrying weapons. You do the educating AND try to sell your OC to the public.

Click to expand...

Red herring.springerdave.

imported post

Mike wrote:

sasha601 wrote:

I wonder if a person must follow order from a police officer regardless if order is lawful or not?

Click to expand...

can you cite to an Michigan law requiring you to obey police orders in the first place?

I'm serious - why assume this? Obviously the police have the power to deain on reasonable suspicion and arrest or warrant or an exception to the warrant exception and use force to do so - but generally can the police give orders in Michigan?

Click to expand...

The police have no power to just give blanket orders to citizens and arrest them if they do not obey. However, one exception has already been discussed; an officer orders you to assist him/her with an arrest and you refuse. That could be a crime. There are a very few other exceptions and most of the time those would be under Marshall Law in extreme cases.

Further, people sometimes assume that an officer is just "abusing their authority" and alot of folks on here would say to ignore them. How do you know you or your vehicle doesn't match the description of a suspect in a crime? Each day countless BOL's come over the computer for various crimes across the state. Many come across the radio. Some are area dependent and others are not. If you refuse to comply with an officer performing an investigation he/she may legally detain/arrest you without a warrant and hold you for a period of time. Further, after doing so may release you if you are not involved, but you still got arrested. You can file suit later, but if they had probable cause etc. you will see the case go bye-bye with a motion for summary disposition.

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

Mike wrote:

sasha601 wrote:

I wonder if a person must follow order from a police officer regardless if order is lawful or not?

Click to expand...

can you cite to an Michigan law requiring you to obey police orders in the first place?

I'm serious - why assume this? Obviously the police have the power to deain on reasonable suspicion and arrest or warrant or an exception to the warrant exception and use force to do so - but generally can the police give orders in Michigan?

Click to expand...

The police have no power to just give blanket orders to citizens and arrest them if they do not obey. However, one exception has already been discussed; an officer orders you to assist him/her with an arrest and you refuse. That could be a crime. There are a very few other exceptions and most of the time those would be under Marshall Law in extreme cases.

Further, people sometimes assume that an officer is just "abusing their authority" and alot of folks on here would say to ignore them. How do you know you or your vehicle doesn't match the description of a suspect in a crime? Each day countless BOL's come over the computer for various crimes across the state. Many come across the radio. Some are area dependent and others are not. If you refuse to comply with an officer performing an investigation he/she may legally detain/arrest you without a warrant and hold you for a period of time. Further, after doing so may release you if you are not involved, but you still got arrested. You can file suit later, but if they had probable cause etc. you will see the case go bye-bye with a motion for summary disposition.

Click to expand...

Woe I never said ordered to assist in an arrest, I said summoned to assist. Big difference one is a demand, the other is a request. Try to cite Michigan law where it says I have to assist in an arrest. I may be required as a human being to help an officer if he is struggling, but even then I don't by law have to put myself in danger. Frankly that is what I pay him to do.

imported post



When you say "If you refuse to comply with an officer performing an investigation he/she may legally detain/arrest you without a warrant and hold you for a period of time.", what is your definition of refusal to comply? If person does not want to cooperate with you at all (person neither resists nor consents), would you consider it refusal to comply and justification for arrest? As far as I know, citizen only requires to provide name to the officer and only after he/she was legally detained.

Hombre1 wrote:

Mike wrote:

sasha601 wrote:

I wonder if a person must follow order from a police officer regardless if order is lawful or not?

Click to expand...

can you cite to an Michigan law requiring you to obey police orders in the first place?

I'm serious - why assume this? Obviously the police have the power to deain on reasonable suspicion and arrest or warrant or an exception to the warrant exception and use force to do so - but generally can the police give orders in Michigan?

Click to expand...

The police have no power to just give blanket orders to citizens and arrest them if they do not obey. However, one exception has already been discussed; an officer orders you to assist him/her with an arrest and you refuse. That could be a crime. There are a very few other exceptions and most of the time those would be under Marshall Law in extreme cases.

Further, people sometimes assume that an officer is just "abusing their authority" and alot of folks on here would say to ignore them. How do you know you or your vehicle doesn't match the description of a suspect in a crime? Each day countless BOL's come over the computer for various crimes across the state. Many come across the radio. Some are area dependent and others are not. If you refuse to comply with an officer performing an investigation he/she may legally detain/arrest you without a warrant and hold you for a period of time. Further, after doing so may release you if you are not involved, but you still got arrested. You can file suit later, but if they had probable cause etc. you will see the case go bye-bye with a motion for summary disposition.

Click to expand...

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

  Woe I never said ordered to assist in an arrest, I said summoned to assist. Big difference one is a demand, the other is a request. Try to cite Michigan law where it says I have to assist in an arrest. I may be required as a human being to help an officer if he is struggling, but even then I don't by law have to put myself in danger. Frankly that is what I pay him to do.

Click to expand...

As far as I know - there's no law that forces you to assist an officer if requested.

There is a law that says that you're allowed to assist an officer if requested, however.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-764-16

imported post

Original Poster- I think about this too. I was unlawfully detained and searched (myself and vehicle) in Sterling Heights more than a few times.

*To note: nothing against SHPD just using it as an example for now.

I realized there's only one thing you can do- Call in the state troopers. Here's your situation:

Taking a stroll down 15 Mile Road, between Ryan and Dequindre

Sterling Heights PD is doing it's usual patrols, in and out of the parking lot there at Nelson Park. Driving out, the officers spot you on the sidewalk, walking Westbound, which is in their general direction at this point.

You are Terry Stopped and detained for a very long amount of time. The officers continue to question you over and over again- A crowd has gathered as you attempt to alert the public that you are being detained illegally and have been searched illegally. At this point- you may be handcuffed and the pistol already taken away from you.

At this point- SHPD isn't going to swoop in and stop the abuse. You have 1 option and that is to have somebody else dial 911 and request State Troopers or to dial the State Troopers directly- requesting immediate action.

In a perfect world- the State Troopers roll in (ten minutes?) later, assuming authority over SHPD on arrival, they order your release upon further investigation on scene. Not sure on this but Maybe later You can file charges against the SHPD with the Michigan State Troopers police report.


That's about it. I can only think of one way to quickly and directly interfere with and end abuse by your local police department. Call the state troopers and hope they arrive (in time).