Disobeying a Police Order You Consider to be Unlawful

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Texas.

Ok, so this is my first Thread, feel free to move if needed. Just need a real answer and not what I should do, but what I'm obligated to do and what are my rights.

See vid and then I'd like to know what would happen if this turned out differently. see below video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7FzeSPNx0

Say the cop insisted and demanded the kids ID, and even after the kid said no, the cop arrested him. Now I'm pretty sure, the kid would go to jail, have to get a lawyer, etc etc. If that were to happen, I think we'd all be in agreement that the arrest would have been unlawful, due to there really being no reason for the stop. But in the state of Texas, does the person have a right to demand an SO or supervisor if the person KNOWS for a fact that the police officer is mandating an unlawful or illegal order? Also regarding rights, I don't want to go to jail, but I also don't want to give up my rights and comply, so then, what are my rights?

And in that video, was the kid right in saying that in Texas he doesn't have to show ID if the cop didn't have a valid reason for stopping him??

So a more extreme example since the other one may be on the fence a little. Say you get pulled over, and the cop says, he pulled you over for a busted tail light. No problem. Now, here is where I'm going EXTREME for the purposes of the situational example. Then the cops just happens to say, hey, strip naked and dance. NOW, we all KNOW this is unlawful and illegal. But what right do I have in refusing to not abide by that unlawful order? I tried getting an answer regarding a not so extreme example, and many say, well, you always comply. While my answer is absolutely not. If you know the order is unlawful, you don't comply. And if I do comply, he lets me go, "loses" video footage, and all I can do is file a complaint,and its my word against his. So in this case, (again, I KNOW this would never happen) what are my rights, can I say NO, and demand an SO as in the case above correct? and what if the officer says no, I'm not contacting anyone , its 3 am.

One more question, in Texas. I know we have to stop and provide ID when stopped for a traffic violation, as there is something written. But what is the law regarding how far you have to roll down the window. I've also seen some video footage of LEO mandating people roll down their window all the way, but then the person only leaves is about 3" down. Is there something in writing that cites what the rule is in that situation? As long as I roll it down a bit, i can hear them and they can hear me, and they can pass me the ticket, I should be good, right???

Now, I do know that IF I don't know if something is lawful or not, I should comply as the LEO is more knowledgeable. But my concern was to things we DO know are unlawful.

I know I'm sounding like some anti-law person. And I don't mind all laws, what bothers me is seeing more infringement of rights of others, and last year my 80 yr old dad got pulled from his car for no reason whatsoever, and handcuffed, had his wallet taken from him and they searched through it. My dad had gone to the supervisor for the dept, who apologized, and was told to file a complaint but he didn't. He didn't tell me until recently because he knew I'd get upset, and I did. So after seeing stuff on the news about bad cops, knowing what happpened with my dad, I'm at the point where I will obey the law, but I don't feel I should give up rights thru any type of manipulation, harassment, or intimidation by an LEO's. Sorry for my long 1st post guys. All info will be appreciated.

Questions such as the ones you're posing are not questions that generally get answered at the side of the road or at the scene. They are questions that get answered by a jury. THEY are the ones who ultimately get to determine whether or not probable cause exists for the actions taken by law enforcement.

Quote:

---

If that were to happen, I think we'd all be in agreement that the arrest would have been unlawful, due to there really being no reason for the stop.

---

Neither you nor anyone else can say just from watching events as to whether there was reason or not. Only the officer making the stop can do that - because probable cause is made within the thoughts of the officer taking into account ALL information available to the officer at the time, which is often not the same information available to the subject of the stop. For example, if a BOLO was put out yesterday for a bank robber, a tall white male in his 20's driving a beat up red truck, then odds are pretty good that every beat up red truck in town is going to be followed long enough for the officer to tell if there might be a tall male in it - and if so, a traffic stop is pretty likely - even if the driver didn't do anything, and has no idea why they're being stopped. Why? because the officer would be able to articulate specific and relevant reasons why this particular vehicle, as opposed to the hundreds of others whizzing around, got stopped. Tall guy driving a new truck? Female driving a beat up truck? Won't fly. It all boils down the whether the officer can articulate circumstances, facts, and knowledge that would create reasonable suspicion and whether or not the jury finds that combination of events to be reasonable.

Quote:

---

does the person have a right to demand an SO or supervisor if the person KNOWS for a fact that the police officer is mandating an unlawful or illegal order?

---

They can demand anything they want. Doesn't mean the officer or supervisor is mandated to provide what is demanded. The supervisor would be reading the arrest report anyway, and there is a process for both complaints and civil actions against departments or specific officers who issue unlawful orders. Again, this type of thing doesn't get solved roadside.

Quote:

---

But what right do I have in refusing to not abide by that unlawful order?

---

You can absolutely say "no". And the officer may then choose to make an arrest. Then you fight about who is right in court. And if you're right, you go after the officer and/or the department for infringing your rights.

'

Quote:

---

But what is the law regarding how far you have to roll down the window

---

You roll it down as far as the officer tells you. Encounters during traffic stops are the 2nd leading cause of death of police officers, and the courts give police VERY wide leeway in giving orders that allow the officer to control the situation and keep themselves safe. If the officer tells you to roll the window down, you DO it, otherwise the officer is going to lawfully escalate the situation very quickly in order to get you into their control such that they can satisfy themselves that the reason you're not complying is that you're too busy trying to get the safety off your firearm. You're simply not going to win in a situation like this, and the courts have again and again upheld the ability of officers to take necessary steps to gain compliance in situations like these (or, for example, situations where a person won't take their hands out of their pockets, won't turn and face the officer, etc.). People who don't comply with simple and usual commands usually are non-compliant for a reason, and being "right" won't stop things like tasers, police dogs, defensive or control tactics by the officer, etc. The place to be "right" is court. Outside of court, you risk escalation. Escalation where you're not going to win most of the time.

Quote:

---

my 80 yr old dad got pulled from his car for no reason whatsoever, and handcuffed, had his wallet taken from him and they searched through it. My dad had gone to the supervisor for the dept, who apologized, and was told to file a complaint but he didn't.

---

If he's not willing to file a complaint, how does he expect the behavior to come to light so it can be addressed? Problems don't get solved when the people in a position to shed light on problems up decide that they'll just walk away grumbling and let the NEXT person deal with it. Law enforcement agencies at all levels have a duty to the public and to the "good" officers to investigate complaints of improper or unlawful behavior of their officers. But it has to START with the formal complaint.

Quote:

---

Questions such as the ones you're posing are not questions that generally get answered at the side of the road or at the scene. They are questions that get answered by a jury. THEY are the ones who ultimately get to determine whether or not probable cause exists for the actions taken by law enforcement.

---

this makes sense...and I would never do anything like this if I wasn't recorded myself...

Quote:

---

Neither you nor anyone else can say just from watching events as to whether there was reason or not. Only the officer making the stop can do that - because probable cause is made within the thoughts of the officer taking into account ALL information available to the officer at the time, which is often not the same information available to the subject of the stop. For example, if a BOLO was put out yesterday for a bank robber, a tall white male in his 20's driving a beat up red truck, then odds are pretty good that every beat up red truck in town is going to be followed long enough for the officer to tell if there might be a tall male in it - and if so, a traffic stop is pretty likely - even if the driver didn't do anything, and has no idea why they're being stopped. Why? because the officer would be able to articulate specific and relevant reasons why this particular vehicle, as opposed to the hundreds of others whizzing around, got stopped. Tall guy driving a new truck? Female driving a beat up truck? Won't fly. It all boils down the whether the officer can articulate circumstances, facts, and knowledge that would create reasonable suspicion and whether or not the jury finds that combination of events to be reasonable.

---

and I completely understand if the cop has probable cause in your example...but I was giving an example in regards to the video, since the cop didn't have probable cause nor suspicion, and I added a "what if" the cop "had" arrested him scenario...in the example, the cop would have had no lawful cause, nor reasonable suspicion or probable cause to have even pulled him over, and "IF" my scenario were to have happened, then the arrest would be unlawful....

Quote:

---

They can demand anything they want. Doesn't mean the officer or supervisor is mandated to provide what is demanded. The supervisor would be reading the arrest report anyway, and there is a process for both complaints and civil actions against departments or specific officers who issue unlawful orders. Again, this type of thing doesn't get solved roadside.

---

Quote:

---

You can absolutely say "no". And the officer may then choose to make an arrest. Then you fight about who is right in court. And if you're right, you go after the officer and/or the department for infringing your rights.

---

so I guess that is were my issue is...I think its abhorrent that I may possible be arrested, go to jail, have to post a bond, get a lawyer, spend $$ , time, etc, go thru all the BS that goes along with it, if I stand up against an unlawful order... I've seen a few videos where LEO's cross the line and demand something that is unlawful, and I my issue is that I should have to be arrested to go to jail to prove myself, but like you basically are saying is.. thats how it goes.... I appreciate your answer, makes sense, and I don't like it, but tough.... thanks...
'

Quote:

---

You roll it down as far as the officer tells you. Encounters during traffic stops are the 2nd leading cause of death of police officers, and the courts give police VERY wide leeway in giving orders that allow the officer to control the situation and keep themselves safe. If the officer tells you to roll the window down, you DO it, otherwise the officer is going to lawfully escalate the situation very quickly in order to get you into their control such that they can satisfy themselves that the reason you're not complying is that you're too busy trying to get the safety off your firearm. You're simply not going to win in a situation like this, and the courts have again and again upheld the ability of officers to take necessary steps to gain compliance in situations like these (or, for example, situations where a person won't take their hands out of their pockets, won't turn and face the officer, etc.). People who don't comply with simple and usual commands usually are non-compliant for a reason, and being "right" won't stop things like tasers, police dogs, defensive or control tactics by the officer, etc. The place to be "right" is court. Outside of court, you risk escalation. Escalation where you're not going to win most of the time.

---

ok, so hands out of their pockets I can understand, turning face towards LEO, showing ID, turning off car,etc, I have no problem with. But if my tint is in accordance with the law, and I can hear the officer, and he can hear me, and I can recieve his clipboardto sign what is needed,etc, why is rolling it down all the way necessary if there are no other issues whatsoever, and its just a routine stop? I know I'm being difficult, but I go back to the whats lawful. And I guess my action would be to , not roll it down all the way, the officer insists, I don't, he breaks the window, tazes me, arrests me for not following a "lawful" order and obstruction, etc.... and I don't think there is a judge or jury that would find that what I did was out of bounds or illegal... again, my example is regarding a routine stop, not one where the LEO suspects something, or smells alcohol or anything else like that... it would be the same as a LEO asking me questions for no reason whatsoever, and telling me to answer him and I refuse, that is not unlawful...

Quote:

---

If he's not willing to file a complaint, how does he expect the behavior to come to light so it can be addressed? Problems don't get solved when the people in a position to shed light on problems up decide that they'll just walk away grumbling and let the NEXT person deal with it. Law enforcement agencies at all levels have a duty to the public and to the "good" officers to investigate complaints of improper or unlawful behavior of their officers. But it has to START with the formal complaint.

---

thats exactly what I told him...the LEO could keep doing that to others...it was a year or more ago, so he just let it go...I emailed the station on the warning ticket given, to find the officer to make the complaint with my dad recently, and they won't respond...so I just stopped trying... and I agree with all you said, I think everyone should do the same when there is a legitimate concern... thanks for your time and responses, sorry for the long posts...

Quote:

---

Quoting knowidea

---

ok, so hands out of their pockets I can understand, turning face towards LEO, showing ID, turning off car,etc, I have no problem with. But if my tint is in accordance with the law, and I can hear the officer, and he can hear me, and I can recieve his clipboardto sign what is needed,etc, why is rolling it down all the way necessary if there are no other issues whatsoever, and its just a routine stop?

---

Because until the officer can FULLY see you, your hands, and any potential threats to his safety that may be within your reach inside the vehicle, he's going to treat the situation as a hostile one. That's how police officers go home at the end of the day, instead of to the morgue. It really IS that simple. And the courts find such orders completely reasonable.

Quote:

---

I know I'm being difficult, but I go back to the whats lawful. And I guess my action would be to , not roll it down all the way, the officer insists, I don't, he breaks the window, tazes me, arrests me for not following a "lawful" order and obstruction, etc.... and I don't think there is a judge or jury that would find that what I did was out of bounds or illegal

---

You might think that, but you'd be wrong. And under arrest. Or worse.

Quote:

---

example is regarding a routine stop, not one where the LEO suspects something, or smells alcohol or anything else like that

---

This is the part that's getting you in trouble. Because you don't THINK like an officer. There IS no such thing as a "routine" stop. Each and EVERY stop has the potential to be deadly. And officers who don't have a death wish TREAT each and every stop as having that potential. Cops have been gunned down approaching the cars of elderly and disabled grandmothers, and 14 year old girls. There is no "safe" stop for an officer. Before exiting the vehicle, their first concern is the safety of themselves and the other driver - which is why they often have to do things like use the PA to tell a driver to turn off the roadway or into a parking lot (gotta hate those videos of officers and citizens being smacked by distracted or drunk drivers during a stop next to the traffic lanes). Then, when they get out of the car, their focus is on protecting themselves from the unknown person they're walking up to. They are trained that way, intensely, on purpose. Over and over. And refreshed. And again. And again. Goes back to what I told you above, about "routine" traffic stops being the #2 cause of death in the line of duty. If you're stopped, you need to anticipate that the officer is going to walk up to the car a certain way, many will even keep their "hot hand" (gun side) free, and when they initially start talking to you, that they'll be examining the area immediately around the driver, looking for weapons or other dangers - like the rattlesnake that one driver threw at one of my officers years ago during a stop. If you get in the way of that process, expect consequences and escalation until the officer can satisfy themselves regarding any potential immediate danger. How FAR it has to escalate is up to how cooperative the driver is willing to be, or not.

Quote:

---

Quoting knowidea

---

I know I'm being difficult

---

Not only difficult, but foolish.

I didn't look at the video and I just skimmed the posts but I've seen many arguments like yours.

The fallacy of your argument is, at the time of the stop, all you have is your opinion that it's a wrongful stop and has already been pointed out, you don't argue your opinion at the side of the road, you do what the cop tells you to do and then seek your remedies later.

Otherwise, you get unpleasant but well deserved consequences.

I'm tired of reading the whines of cop-baiters whose traffic stops didn't go well. Grow up and use a little common sense when you get pulled over.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Not only difficult, but foolish.

I didn't look at the video and I just skimmed the posts but I've seen many arguments like yours.

The fallacy of your argument is, at the time of the stop, all you have is your opinion that it's a wrongful stop and has already been pointed out, you don't argue your opinion at the side of the road, you do what the cop tells you to do and then seek your remedies later.

Otherwise, you get unpleasant but well deserved consequences.

I'm tired of reading the whines of cop-baiters whose traffic stops didn't go well. Grow up and use a little common sense when you get pulled over.

---

I was talking in regards to an unlawful order, not necessarily an unlawful stop...and I just feel the advice to obey and conform to unlawful orders is wrong regardless if its a traffic stop or i'm just walking down the street and a LEO doesn't like what I'm wearing and decides to demand my iD or threaten me with jail....

and there was no fallacy in the argument, or maybe you should reread it...I specifically gave a scenario of the stop being UNLAWFUL...not that I thought that it was unlawful, or that I was guessing...that IT WAS unlawful...again, IT WAS A SCENARIO....

If you're tired of reading whines, put yourself on ignore then because you are whining....I never said I'd bait a cop, or anything about a traffic stop going well....to you common sense is obey and conform to any unlawful order...my response is that if I KNOW that something is unlawful, that I may have to take one for the team and stand up for my rights if they are being infringed upon.....and all I was doing is aasking questions and I rec'd good responses from someone that knows...I was hoping on different answers but now I know where the line is, and know what it may take if I cross them.....and you're more than welcome to put me on your ignore list if you so please, in fact, I would appreciate it...

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

Because until the officer can FULLY see you, your hands, and any potential threats to his safety that may be within your reach inside the vehicle, he's going to treat the situation as a hostile one. That's how police officers go home at the end of the day, instead of to the morgue. It really IS that simple. And the courts find such orders completely reasonable.




You might think that, but you'd be wrong. And under arrest. Or worse.





This is the part that's getting you in trouble. Because you don't THINK like an officer. There IS no such thing as a "routine" stop. Each and EVERY stop has the potential to be deadly. And officers who don't have a death wish TREAT each and every stop as having that potential. Cops have been gunned down approaching the cars of elderly and disabled grandmothers, and 14 year old girls. There is no "safe" stop for an officer. Before exiting the vehicle, their first concern is the safety of themselves and the other driver - which is why they often have to do things like use the PA to tell a driver to turn off the roadway or into a parking lot (gotta hate those videos of officers and citizens being smacked by distracted or drunk drivers during a stop next to the traffic lanes). Then, when they get out of the car, their focus is on protecting themselves from the unknown person they're walking up to. They are trained that way, intensely, on purpose. Over and over. And refreshed. And again. And again. Goes back to what I told you above, about "routine" traffic stops being the #2 cause of death in the line of duty. If you're stopped, you need to anticipate that the officer is going to walk up to the car a certain way, many will even keep their "hot hand" (gun side) free, and when they initially start talking to you, that they'll be examining the area immediately around the driver, looking for weapons or other dangers - like the rattlesnake that one driver threw at one of my officers years ago during a stop. If you get in the way of that process, expect consequences and escalation until the officer can satisfy themselves regarding any potential immediate danger. How FAR it has to escalate is up to how cooperative the driver is willing to be, or not.

---

thank you for your responses!! oh and regarding that video...the kid was correct in refusing his unlawful order since the stop was made in error, correct??

The first thing that he said was that you were pulled over for expired registration. You repeated it. He articulated his reason for the stop. You affirmed it. I'm glad it didn't get worse than ot did.

It's not an unlawful order until a court says it is.

I notice in the video they stopped recording. That is because Bradley is too stupid to understand he had in fact broken the law by operating the vehicle with an expired registration. The officer likely went back to his car, to call backup and a wrecker. Bradley did not have a good night after the video stopped.

Quote:

---

Quoting knowidea

---

oh and regarding that video...the kid was correct in refusing his unlawful order since the stop was made in error, correct??

---

Again, that would have to be determined by a JURY, after hearing from the officer all relevant facts based on what the officer knew at the time of the incident. The video alone is NOT enough to establish whether the stop was in error or not.

Time to go out and buy the t-shirt: "I Rode the Lightning"