Can You Get Away With Drunk Driving By Ignoring Officers' Instructions

[winstead]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Ohio, California, Mass,

On one of those reality cop shows, this police officer was driving in their car when they spotted another car committing a traffic violation. The driver parked the car and began walking away. The officer stepped out of their car and instructed the driver to go back to the car and sit inside while the officer proceeded with their investigation. The traffic violation became a DUI when it turned the guy was drunk.

My question is that could the driver have refused with officer's request since they had already parked the car and were walking away? Could they have just said that it was not their car?
What would have been the consequences?

[PTPD22]

First you need to understand that reality cop shows never show the whole incident. There is a lot of interaction that gets cut and only the "good stuff" get aired. 20+ minutes of roadside investigation isn't very entertaining to most folks. So, you never really get the whole story.

But, to your questions...

My question is that could the driver have refused with officer's request since they had already parked the car and were walking away?

No, the driver couldn't have just walked away. The officer already saw a violation and was conducting a traffic stop for it. Just because the guy managed to get out of the car before the officer could catch up to him doesn't mean it's kings-X. Try putting that logic onto something more serious. Say a cop sees a guy robbing a bank. But, before the cop can get across the street to intervene, the guy completes the robbery and is now walking down the street. The robbery is over and no crime is currently being committed. Now the guy is just walking down the street. Does the guy get to just tell the cop "better luck next time" and keep walking?

Could they have just said that it was not their car?

Sure they could say that...but so what? The cop already saw him driving the car and committing a violation. What does it matter who the car belongs to? Do you mean could the guy just say "it wasn't me driving?" Sure, he could try that...if you really think the cop is that stupid.

What would have been the consequences?

If he had tried to just walk away from the cop, the cop would have stopped him and, possibly, arrested him for delaying or obstructing...using whatever force was reasonable to do so. Maybe a sternly delivered command would be all the force needed. Or, if the guy wanted to resist vigorously enough, maybe a good Tasing, bounced on the sidewalk, and handcuffing...trust me, that is not the way you want to become a reality TV star. Now, that would have made it on the air!

[winstead]

First you need to understand that reality cop shows never show the whole incident. There is a lot of interaction that gets cut and only the "good stuff" get aired. 20+ minutes of roadside investigation isn't very entertaining to most folks. So, you never really get the whole story.

Absolutely. It is a pretty much a given that reality tv is not reality. Even documentaries do not show the whole truth. I am just going on with what I saw on the show. I do agree, there was probably more going on than what was shown.

No, the driver couldn't have just walked away. The officer already saw a violation and was conducting a traffic stop for it. Just because the guy managed to get out of the car before the officer could catch up to him doesn't mean it's kings-X. Try putting that logic onto something more serious. Say a cop sees a guy robbing a bank. But, before the cop can get across the street to intervene, the guy completes the robbery and is now walking down the street. The robbery is over and no crime is currently being committed. Now the guy is just walking down the street. Does the guy get to just tell the cop "better luck next time" and keep walking?

That is an excellent point and I am glad you brought it up. In a situation where an officer is the only witness to the crime and the perpetrator denies being involved and it becomes "my word against his" , and correct me if I am wrong, depending on the offense the officer has the option of arresting or writing a ticket. What prevents an officer from simply walking up to anyone and accusing of anyone of a crime or violation and hauling them in?

Sure they could say that...but so what? The cop already saw him driving the car and committing a violation. What does it matter who the car belongs to? Do you mean could the guy just say "it wasn't me driving?" Sure, he could try that...if you really think the cop is that stupid.

I am not sure what my opinion of the officer's intelligence has to do with this. BTW, as far as I can tell, the officer showed a tremendous amount of intelligence in the matter. The perpetrator was as smart as a bag of hammers.

If he had tried to just walk away from the cop, the cop would have stopped him and, possibly, arrested him for delaying or obstructing...using whatever force was reasonable to do so. Maybe a sternly delivered command would be all the force needed. Or, if the guy wanted to resist vigorously enough, maybe a good Tasing, bounced on the sidewalk, and handcuffing...trust me, that is not the way you want to become a reality TV star. Now, that would have made it on the air!

That would have made it far more entertaining. The perpetrator looked pretty pathetic. And the officer did a great a job controlling the situation in a peaceful yet firm manner. But if the perpetrator did not walk away but just stood there and just argued with the officer that it never happened and the acted in a non threatening manner. What are the officer's options?

Btw, I just want to say thank you for answering my questions. I am not a lawyer or have any type of law enforcement experience and I am glad you are shedding light the matter.

[PTPD22]

What prevents an officer from simply walking up to anyone and accusing of anyone of a crime or violation and hauling them in?

Well, beyond the obvious (I would hope) answer of integrity, there is the little matter of the law and the constitution. The officer would be risking his home, his job, his pension, his bank account, and any other assets he has or ever will have in a civil suit as well as risking going to federal prison. The more pertinent question is what would motivate an officer to do this? What is the up side?

But if the perpetrator did not walk away but just stood there and just argued with the officer that it never happened and the acted in a non threatening manner. What are the officer's options?

Just what I wrote in my first post. The officer has the authority to detain the person and use whatever force is reasonable to effect that detention while conducting his/her investigation. The guy doesn't have to be threatening to commit the crime of "hindering, delaying, or obstructing."

As a cop, I don't argue. If the person has legitimate questions or doesn't understand the nature of their violation, I am happy to answer or explain (within reason). But, I don't allow the contact to devolve into an argument. I say, "I stopped you for (X violation)" and either write the cite or give the warning. If, during the contact, I develop a suspicion that the person was driving while impaired, I prolong the stop to conduct that investigation. The person does not have to answer my questions or incriminate himself, but neither are they free to leave or obstruct my investigation. If they want to argue, they will find themselves arguing to themselves while I go about conducting the investigation...I simply refuse to respond to their argumentative questions or statements. Once I have completed my investigation, depending on the results of the investigation, I either give my warning and release the person, say, "here is your citation. Have a nice night," or "turn around and put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest."

[sniper]

That is an excellent point and I am glad you brought it up. In a situation where an officer is the only witness to the crime and the perpetrator denies being involved and it becomes "my word against his" , and correct me if I am wrong, depending on the offense the officer has the option of arresting or writing a ticket. What prevents an officer from simply walking up to anyone and accusing of anyone of a crime or violation and hauling them in?

Not only did PTPD bring up the obvious, there is one more. Lying on the stand can "Brady List" the officer. This effectively discredits ANY of the officer’s future testimony pure garbage. Very few counties will allow a "Brady" officer to testify. This effectively ends the officer’s career, being their word is worthless.

That would have made it far more entertaining. The perpetrator looked pretty pathetic. And the officer did a great a job controlling the situation in a peaceful yet firm manner. But if the perpetrator did not walk away but just stood there and just argued with the officer that it never happened and the acted in a non threatening manner. What are the officer's options?

I can't even tell you how many times people say they adamantly say "I wasn't speeding", "I stopped for that stop sign.", "I wasn't on the phone.", "You sure it wasn't the other guy?", or "These aren't my pants officer, I've never seen those drugs.". In this situation, the officer witnessed the violation and stopped said violator who was now walking away. The officer stopped the guy and questioned them, then determined they were DUI. It's simple. People lie to cops almost ALL the time, even the "normal" people of society who have never done anything* wrong in their life (*never been caught). If cops took someone’s "word" for something all the time you would have a really gullible police force.

[winstead]

"Can You Get Away With Drunk Driving By Ignoring Officers' Instructions" was not the original title of this thread. I understand I am not a mod nor do I have control over this thread, however, it would have been nice that whoever did this gave an explanation In my original post it has nothing to do with getting away with drunk and driving. It just address what the consequences if the perpetrator had disregarded the officer's commands. There was no mention in the initial post about getting away with drunk and driving.


Thank you both for clearing things up. Every now and then when I watch these cop shows, from what I see it is plain as day the people they are arresting have committed a crime. But what happened on that cop show was kind of odd. Like I said before, I do not have any type of law enforcement experience and I am not a lawyer, which is why I am asking these questions.

[Brian Simoneau]

Drawing upon my experience as a police officer and a lawyer, I can say that you may have a legal right to refuse to answer questions, not perform field sobriety tests, and walk away from the police. Police officers must have sufficient "facts and circumstances" to justify ordering someone to remain in place, detain someone, or effect an arrest. Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful detention, search, interrogation, or arrest can be suppressed in court.

However, the police usually don't react well when someone disobeys their orders, lawful or not. Disobedience may very well result in an arrest and criminal charges. Whether or not the charges will "stick" is another story, based on 4th Amendment / Constitutional law principles.