Was I disobeying a lawful order?

[Richard Parker]

Last night, returning from a Halloween party, two NYC transit cops stopped a friend who I was with for wearing roller skates in the subway station. They ordered us both to the top of the stairs. Then they ordered me to go back down the stairs. I said I'd rather stay at the top of the stairs and then they threatened to arrest me, so I went down. They proceeded to take my friend into the transit police station so I went upstairs and waited outside. The officer came outside the office and threatened me again if I didn't go downstairs. This time I refused and he gave up. Was I disobeying a lawful order? What is included in this category? Do police have the power to order you to go to a certain place? Where can I learn about what powers the NYPD has in these circumstances?

[Really Not All That Bright]

New York Statutes and Consolidated Laws:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/me...MMONQUERY=LAWS

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Do police have the power to order you to go to a certain place?

They can order you to do anything. The question you're asking is if they have the power to arrest you for not following such an order. (nitpick I know, but it's a distinction that matters to me)

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Last night, returning from a Halloween party, two NYC transit cops stopped a friend who I was with for wearing roller skates in the subway station. They ordered us both to the top of the stairs. Then they ordered me to go back down the stairs.

What type of stairs are we talking about, was he telling you to leave the subway station or, what?

I said I'd rather stay at the top of the stairs and then they threatened to arrest me, so I went down. They proceeded to take my friend into the transit police station so I went upstairs and waited outside. The officer came outside the office and threatened me again if I didn't go downstairs. This time I refused and he gave up. Was I disobeying a lawful order? What is included in this category? Do police have the power to order you to go to a certain place? Where can I learn about what powers the NYPD has in these circumstances?

Was the police officer asking you to wait inside the subway station and you were not doing so?

Sorry, just not 100% clear on what the situation was.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by rigamorale

They can order you to do anything. The question you're asking is if they have the power to arrest you for not following such an order. (nitpick I know, but it's a distinction that matters to me)

Uh, to be clear my question is whether they gave a "lawful order"? This is a legal term used in the statutes.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

What type of stairs are we talking about, was he telling you to leave the subway station or, what? [...] Was the police officer asking you to wait inside the subway station and you were not doing so?

It was a staircase down to the platform within the larger station. He wasn't asking me to leave the station, just go back down the stairs (which he had just ordered me to ascend). From the bottom of the stairs, I would not be able to observe the rest of the interaction. I don't think he ordered me to do so in order to detain me, he just didn't want me standing near them. Perhaps it is SOP for an officer to send everyone in a party that is not being arrested/ticketed out of viewing range during an arrest?

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

New York Statutes and Consolidated Laws

A little broad, don't ya think? Besides, I'm not even sure exactly what I'm searching for. I'm pretty sure that statute doesn't define "lawful order."

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Is your friend all right?

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Is your friend all right?

Yeah, she's fine. But I wish I had been able to witness the conversation. According to her, they threatened to arrest her for wearing the skates (which is a no-no for cops when you're not doing something they can arrest you for). They were also just generally dicks about the whole thing. She knew these guys were just doing their jobs and was cooperative (although they could have just written her a damn ticket instead of detaining her for 20 min.). There was no reason they couldn't have had a calm professional interaction.

[Gfactor]

My commandeering report talks about police orders and the cases involving lawful order statutes: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html

[Acsenray]

Were you guys under the influence? If you were exhibiting behaviour indicative of intoxication or other signs of dangerour or erratic behaviour, the cops might have been just interested in keeping you at a distance.

I don't have a cite for you, but my WAG is that a "lawful order" is any order that (1) does not require you to do something that is in violation of the law, and (2) does not infringe on your civil or constitutional rights. It seems to me that asking you to stand in a certain place while they decide what they do about a possible breach of municipal law is a lawful order.

[Acsenray]

It is unfortunate when cops are unnecessarily belligerent, but sometimes they might be justified if there is a reason to be concerned about the behaviour of someone they are questioning. That's why it's relevant whether you and your friend were exhibiting signs of intoxication or other erratic behaviour.

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

According to her, they threatened to arrest her for wearing the skates (which is a no-no for cops when you're not doing something they can arrest you for).

What do you mean? Is it an offense to wear roller skates in the subway or isn't it? What did they say they would charge her with?

(although they could have just written her a damn ticket instead of detaining her for 20 min.).

You mean you would prefer to have a public record citation rather than just be delayed for 20 minutes? So what would they have cited her with? Is it a violation of municipal law to wear roller skates or isn't it?

[mks57]

If they want to be jerks, they can arrest you for something like "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct". It doesn't matter if the charge is dropped at a later date, it lets them take you off the street and put you in a holding cell.

[David Simmons]

I believe that when a police officer has stopped someone for cause it is legitimate for them to order the persons companions to stay "over there" away from the scene. The officer only wants to deal with one person at a time. I'm not so sure about telling someone to go back down into the subway station.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

They can order you to do anything. The question you're asking is if they have the power to arrest you for not following such an order. (nitpick I know, but it's a distinction that matters to me)

The police cannot order you to do anything illegal or immoral.

[Sailboat]

Are there any mitigating circumstances you've left out that might have stimulated the cops to seem belligerent? What were you dresses as, for the Halloween party? Something like Abner Louima?

Sailboat

[Rigamarole]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

The police cannot order you to do anything illegal or immoral.

My point was that they may in fact threaten or "order" a person to do something which they are not really supposed to, and have not been entirely unknown to do so. It is questionable, as ascenray pointed out, whether wearing roller skates is actually an offense or not, but as the OP says, they threatened to arrest her for it.

But as long as "lawful order" is a legally defined concept, that's fine.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by acsenray

What do you mean? Is it an offense to wear roller skates in the subway or isn't it?

Looks like it is:

Section 1050.7

Disorderly conduct.

No person on or in any facility or conveyance shall:

* * *

11. commit any act which causes or may tend to cause harm to oneself or to any other person including, but not limited to:
1. riding a bicycle or straddling a bicycle while it is in motion, or riding a scooter, or any other self-propelled vehicle or any motor-propelled vehicle;
2. wearing roller skates or in-line skates; or * * * *

http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Gfactor

Looks like it is

Are the police empowered to issue citations for violations of transit rules? If so, what is the OP suggesting that the police did wrong, besides (possibly) act like jerks? (We have that only third hand, anyway.) The friend was in violation of transit authority rules and if the police have the responsibility to enforce those rules, then it seems to me that "You, companion of the person who is in violation of this rule, stand over there while we decide whether to issue a citation or take other action" is a perfectly reasonable order.

[gonzomax]

I saw a couple of cops being really abusive to 2 young men they pulled over in front of my house. I went out when I hears the noise and immediately saw the kids were in trouble. So, I wanderered around by my front tree within 50 feet oe so. One of the cops spotted me and orderered me to go back in the house. I pretended I didnt understand. The cop was really screaming but I wasnt going anywhere. He finally calmed down and wrote them a ticket.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Are the police empowered to issue citations for violations of transit rules?

Yes.

Section 1050.11

Ejectment.

Any person who is observed by a New York City police officer to be violating any of these rules and who may receive or has received a notice of violation therefore is subject to ejection from the facilities.



Section 1050.12

Persons authorized to issue notices of violation.

Any New York City police officer or other person(s) designated by the president of the Authority shall be empowered to issue a notice of violation for violation of any of these rules.

http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/rules/rules.htm

[JKilez]

Originally Posted by mks57

If they want to be jerks, they can arrest you for something like "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct". It doesn't matter if the charge is dropped at a later date, it lets them take you off the street and put you in a holding cell.

I will second that. Also, if they are in the process of investigating a crime, they can arrest you for "obstruction" if you do not obey any reasonable order that they give. If they tell you sit down and be quiet, you should sit down and be quiet or else risk arrest. The charge may be dropped at trial--you can mull that over while sitting in the tank overnight.

Of course statutes vary, but most places have such laws against interferring with or obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties.

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

He wasn't asking me to leave the station, just go back down the stairs (which he had just ordered me to ascend). From the bottom of the stairs, I would not be able to observe the rest of the interaction. I don't think he ordered me to do so in order to detain me, he just didn't want me standing near them.

This is probably a common practice, but unless the police officers have a legitimate and genuine fear that you will become violent or otherwise interfere with their work, it is also a despicable practice. Enforcement of the law should always be open to public scrutiny, and when police officers try to prevent such scrutiny it can mean that the officers are doing something wrong and don't want anyone else to witness it.

I am reminded of a similar incident reported by Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project. Stallman was travelling and noticed the police detaining three fellow travellers. He walked up to silently observe what was going on, thinking it his civic duty to act as a witness. The police became agitated and asked him what he was doing, and asked him to leave. He responded simply, "I am being a witness". The police started shouting at him, saying, "No witnesses!", and again asking him to leave. Stallman then agreed to leave if one of the policeman would simply identify himself (via a name or a badge number), but he was given a false name. At this point Stallman left the scene, fearful that he too would be detained or arrested. (You can read this story on Stallman's website.)

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Were you guys under the influence? If you were exhibiting behaviour indicative of intoxication or other signs of dangerour or erratic behaviour, the cops might have been just interested in keeping you at a distance.

We weren't drunk. We were not acting erraticly, or even uncooperatively. My friend did ask,"are you serious?" when they cops refused to let her sit on the stairs to take her skates off before ascending the staircase. I was dressed as a lamp and she was wearing roller-skates and pigtails. No part of our costuming was threatening in any way. I can't think of any other factors. If I were them, I might have assumed we were drunk given the context (late Halloween night wearing costumes), but we were not drunk.

Originally Posted by ascenray

I don't have a cite for you, but my WAG is that a "lawful order" is any order that (1) does not require you to do something that is in violation of the law, and (2) does not infringe on your civil or constitutional rights. It seems to me that asking you to stand in a certain place while they decide what they do about a possible breach of municipal law is a lawful order.

Yeah, that'd be my WAG too. Can we track down some authority on this?

Originally Posted by ascenray

What do you mean? Is it an offense to wear roller skates in the subway or isn't it? What did they say they would charge her with?

It is an offense, but not an arrestable one (although my understanding of criminal procedure if obviously pretty limited). It's like jaywalking. They can cite you, but not arrest you (I think).

Originally Posted by ascenray

You mean you would prefer to have a public record citation rather than just be delayed for 20 minutes? So what would they have cited her with? Is it a violation of municipal law to wear roller skates or isn't it?

Like Gfactor pointed out, it is a violation. It's just that there was no reason to detain her in the main office instead of just writing a ticket. That was my point. (They did end up writing a ticket as well, for $50).

Originally Posted by ascenray

If so, what is the OP suggesting that the police did wrong, besides (possibly) act like jerks? (We have that only third hand, anyway.) The friend was in violation of transit authority rules and if the police have the responsibility to enforce those rules, then it seems to me that "You, companion of the person who is in violation of this rule, stand over there while we decide whether to issue a citation or take other action" is a perfectly reasonable order.

I wasn't suggesting they did something wrong. I was asking what the definition of a lawful order is. It may well have been perfectly reasonable. I'm just curious. It does bother me a little bit that in this context the cop can tell me to stand somewhere from which I cannot see the rest of his interaction with my friend. Mostly I'm just after a delineation of what constitutes a lawful order.

Gfactor, it's not clear to me how your article addresses my question. Isn't it about when you're required to assist an officer? Under extreme circumstances? I looked at the citations but I didn't find one that applied.

[Gfactor]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Gfactor, it's not clear to me how your article addresses my question. Isn't it about when you're required to assist an officer? Under extreme circumstances? I looked at the citations but I didn't find one that applied.

Er. Good point, the statutes are a little different.

Not gonna give you specific legal advice. I'll cite a couple of cases that I see as relevant, though.

Malone v. City of Glens Falls, 251 A.D.2d 838; 674 N.Y.S.2d 502; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7344 (1998) ("While a refusal to obey the lawful order of a police officer can justify an arrest it would not be unreasonable to conclude, on this record, that the officer had no legitimate reason to order plaintiff to leave without making even a cursory attempt to verify his claim").

People v. Zayas, 2005 NY Slip Op 25241; 8 Misc. 3d 879; 797 N.Y.S.2d 897; 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1237 ("Obstructing Governmental Administration has been held to apply where an individual fails to obey the lawful orders of a police officer ( Decker v. Campus, 981 F. Supp. 851 (SDNY, 1997)), where an individual interferes in the arrest of another ( Matter of Samuel VV, 217 A.D.2d 863, 629 N.Y.S.2d 843 (3d Dept., 1995), or where an individual prevents the recovery of evidence by the police ( People v. Ravizee, 146 Misc. 2d 679, 552 N.Y.S.2d 503 (Crim. Ct., NY Cty, 1990)").

[Acsenray]

I'll have to say, if police routinely prevent citizens from acting as witnesses to exercise of their authority, that does trouble me.

It seems to me that courts generally give a lot of deference to police on matters like this, so if the facts are limited to the cop's saying "Stand over there for 20 minutes while we deal with this," then I think the cards are stacked against you -- that's probably going to be considered a lawful order unless there's something else going on. Like "stand over there so you can't watch us unreasonably threaten, intimidate, and harass this young woman." Of course, if that's the case, it's going to be difficult for you to be a witness to that.

[JKilez]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I wasn't suggesting they did something wrong. I was asking what the definition of a lawful order is. It may well have been perfectly reasonable. I'm just curious. It does bother me a little bit that in this context the cop can tell me to stand somewhere from which I cannot see the rest of his interaction with my friend. Mostly I'm just after a delineation of what constitutes a lawful order.

I am not sure if this answers the question of what consitutes a "lawful order", but the following is from the NY state penal codes (bolding mine):

S 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

The officer only has to claim that by refusing to follow his order, you were distracting him from his duties.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by JKilez

The officer only has to claim that by refusing to follow his order, you were distracting him from his duties.

I think the only part of that statute that could apply is the interference part. Seems like an uphill legal battle to argue that observation=interference.

[JKilez]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I think the only part of that statute that could apply is the interference part. Seems like an uphill legal battle to argue that observation=interference.

If the officer gave you a reasonable and lawful order that you refused and he has to give it again, you have at that point interfered with his duties. You are distracting the officer from the issue at hand. The officer does not have to worry about whether you will be convicted of obstruction, he only needs cause to arrest you for obstruction.

[mlees]

I can think of another reason for it to be a reasonable request (from a law enforcement point of view).

Lets say the police see two individuals presumedly heading home from a party. One is wearing roller skates (which are not allowed in the subway). The police approach the pair, with the intent on informing the skater to that his/her skates
aren't allowed. (Safety hazard.) The non-skater becomes annoyed and somewhat vocal, and decides to dispute the rule as stupid.

So the cops seperate the two. Let the angry one go "cool off" over there... A lot of people get argumentative when the police show up.

Not sayin that this happened. I wasn't there. Abuse of power happens. But not every cop is looking to hit someone with their nightstick.

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It is an offense, but not an arrestable one (although my understanding of criminal procedure if obviously pretty limited). It's like jaywalking. They can cite you, but not arrest you (I think).

The police may or may not be able to arrest you for violating the transit authority rules ( although I suspect they can, since a possible penalty is imprisonment for up to 10 days), but the same conduct could also fit the penal law definition of disorderly conduct, for which a person can definitely be arrested.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Rigamarole

They can order you to do anything. The question you're asking is if they have the power to arrest you for not following such an order. (nitpick I know, but it's a distinction that matters to me)

I don't understand the distinction. It seems to me if a policeman doesn't have the power to arrest me for not doing X when he says to do X, then ipso facto he does not have the power to order me to do X.

It may be proper for some reason in some circumstance for him to order me to do X, but in such a case he still doesn't have the power to order me to do X.

What's the distinction you're drawing?

-FrL-

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Frylock

I don't understand the distinction. It seems to me if a policeman doesn't have the power to arrest me for not doing X when he says to do X, then ipso facto he does not have the power to order me to do X.

It may be proper for some reason in some circumstance for him to order me to do X, but in such a case he still doesn't have the power to order me to do X.

What's the distinction you're drawing?

-FrL-

I should have said, "if a policeman doesn't have the power to arrest me or cite me or bring some other negative consequence to bear on me..."

-FrL-

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by JKilez

If the officer gave you a reasonable and lawful order that you refused and he has to give it again, you have at that point interfered with his duties. You are distracting the officer from the issue at hand. The officer does not have to worry about whether you will be convicted of obstruction, he only needs cause to arrest you for obstruction.

Well, this seems a little circular to me. You argue that it was a lawful order by assuming that it was a lawful order. That is, you say it was interference because he was forced to repeat the lawful order, but presumably it wouldn't be interference if his order was unlawful. If he had ordered me to punch his partner and I refused so he had to tell me again, it wouldn't be interference since his order was unlawful. Right?

Originally Posted by doreen

The police may or may not be able to arrest you for violating the transit authority rules ( although I suspect they can, since a possible penalty is imprisonment for up to 10 days), but the same conduct could also fit the penal law definition of disorderly conduct, for which a person can definitely be arrested.

Though this is a bit of a tangent from my question, I would be surprised to learn that you can be arrested for such an offense. But then, I don't know anything about when someone can be arrested! So I'll go try and fight my own ignorance on this aspect.

p.s. I'm don't really intend to criticize the police here or get into a debate about their conduct. I just want to get to the bottom of the whole lawful order issue. FWIW, I think that a rule against roller skates in the subway is obviously a good rule if for no other reason that liability issues.

[Richard Parker]

After digging through Gfactor's most recent cites, I've found some new information.

It appears that orders to disperse or generally leave a certain location are lawful when someone is in violation of Penal Law 240.20 (Disorderly Conduct) . My conduct did not fall under 240.20 which not only requires intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, but also does not include a single person's failure to move so long as they are not obstructing pedestrian traffic.

The court did hold in People v. Galpern that "[a] refusal to obey such an order can be justified only where the circumstances show conclusively that the police officer's direction was purely arbitrary and was not calculated in any way to promote the public order." People v. Galpern, 259 N. Y. 279 (1939).

However, after the penal code was revised, in People v. Sharky, the court reversed Galpern (or at least seriously distinguished it). In Sharky, an officer ordered a defendant in a parking lot to move because there had been a fight near him that they had just dispersed. Defendant refused, and the court upheld his right to do so because the defendant was not violating the new statute of disorderly conduct (which requires intent). People v. Sharky, 293 N.Y.S.2d 262 (1968).

Of course, these cases don't directly address the circumstance where an individual in a party is arrested. But I think it gives some idea of what constitutes a lawful order (i.e. you have to be violating some kind of statute). Presumably officers are given the power to order people to stay at a safe distance, but I cannot find the statutory authority for this. Also, this is distinct from ordering someone to go to a particular location.

[Mr. Slant]

Originally Posted by David Simmons

I believe that when a police officer has stopped someone for cause it is legitimate for them to order the persons companions to stay "over there" away from the scene. The officer only wants to deal with one person at a time. I'm not so sure about telling someone to go back down into the subway station.

I seem to recall that in at least one state, at one point, there was a set distance that the public was allowed to observe the police in the performance of their duties from.
In a documentary I watched, someone recounted that the Black Panthers would occasionally follow and observe the police in the performance of their duties... while the Black Panthers were running around with automatic weapons on display.