Refusal to aid an officer?

[The Keymaster]

I am posting a link to a story that appeared in our local paper. One of the subjects was arrested for "refusal to aid an officer" Could someone tell me what that means?

Police: Munster man fighting cop had marijuana in vehicle

 

[lonehoosier]

 

[Rocketscientist]

IC 35-44-3-7
Refusal to aid an officer
Sec. 7. A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.65.


Seems kinda vague to me. Using my "average joe" interpretation for lack of a better phrase, this could mean anything from, "Help! I'm getting my butt kicked by this criminal" to "Help me build a case against you and/or your buddy or go to jail anyway."

 

[TaunTaun]

Probably contempt of cop...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

IC 35-44-3-7
Refusal to aid an officer
Sec. 7. A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.65.


Seems kinda vague to me. Using my "average joe" interpretation for lack of a better phrase, this could mean anything from, "Help! I'm getting my butt kicked by this criminal" to "Help me build a case against you and/or your buddy or go to jail anyway."

Neither would work. Fear for your personal safety getting involved with a fight is "a reasonable cause" and you can't be compelled to help incriminate yourself with it, either. The scenarios it can be used are pretty slim. Refusing to get out of a car that was going to be towed as evidence, maybe. IIRC there's a specific code for failure to leave a marked crime scene.

 

[The Keymaster]

I was trying to figure this out. Does this mean a citizen can be compelled to help a police officer do his job or face arrest? Who would take the financial responsibility if the citizen was named in a civil suit?

 

[HoughMade]

This is the only appellate case listed in the annotations....since 1903.

Escort service employee's use of code words over the telephone to alert her employer to the presence of police officers was substantial evidence of probative value to support the jury's verdict on a charge of refusal to assist an officer. Low v. State, 580 N.E.2d 737, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 1881 (1991)

I did a Lexis search and found no other cases...again, since 1903, which address what can constitute "refusal to aid". There was one that mentioned a charge of refusal to aid, but the guy pled to other charges, not that one, so the appellate case was not about that crime.

Something tells me this is rarely charged and even more rarely prosecuted.

 

[The Keymaster]

So someone pulled this charge out of their rear end for some reason?

 

[eldirector]

It is called "throwing the book", or "charge them all and let the prosecutor figure it out".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've never charged it, nor seen it charged. I've never had an instance where it might apply and some more serious offense wasn't also present.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Man this thread is going down hill fast. I've heard the dude say he was HIV positive, Hough brought up Aid and Key used the word rear end.

 

[hoosierdoc]

It's curious that officers are not legally required to help us when we're in distress, but we can be compelled to help them with something.

 

[HoughMade]

Eschewing a more philosophical explanation, the nuts and bolts legal reason for that is that a police officer has a general duty to the public that no one member of the public has a claim to, meaning that no individual has a right to a claim for violation of the duty, while when the officer requests aid as a representative of the government in a specific situation, that, because the statute allows for it, creates a duty in an individual to act. Since it is an individual duty, it can be enforced....but there is still no civil cause of action that the police officer could pursue.

...and thats the non-philosophical explanation of why this is......not defending it, explaining it. The statute could be repealed, though.

 

[bradmedic04]

It's curious that officers are not legally required to help us when we're in distress, but we can be compelled to help them with something.

 

[The Keymaster]

Eschewing a more philosophical explanation, the nuts and bolts legal reason for that is that a police officer has a general duty to the public that no one member of the public has a claim to, meaning that no individual has a right to a claim for violation of the duty, while when the officer requests aid as a representative of the government in a specific situation, that, because the statute allows for it, creates a duty in an individual to act. Since it is an individual duty, it can be enforced....but there is still no civil cause of action that the police officer could pursue.

...and thats the non-philosophical explanation of why this is......not defending it, explaining it. The statute could be repealed, though.

I don't speak attorney, are you saying this a stupid archaic law?

 

[chipbennett]

Given the courts' opinions in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. District of Columbia, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department et al, I don't see how such a statute could in any way be construed to be constitutional.

Actually, I don't see how it is constitutional at all (Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure without probable cause of unlawful activity) for a police officer to compel someone to come to his aid under penalty of law, for any reason.

 

[lizerdking]

..... So the article said she was the passenger of the car. I don't think the charge was related to her "not breaking up the fight", I hate to speculate, but maybe she got in the way of the search??

 

[hoosierdoc]

..... So the article said she was the passenger of the car. I don't think the charge was related to her "not breaking up the fight", I hate to speculate, but maybe she got in the way of the search??

Who knows for sure, but I would think that would be more obstruction then failure to help.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't speak attorney, are you saying this a stupid archaic law?

All I'm saying is that the difference between duties flowing to the public at large and in an individual situations make the difference in treatment not arbitrary from a legal perspective under the common law.

....then there's the Tort Claims Act that provides specific immunity to officers to state law claims....

As for whether it is stupid or not, it seems unnecessary and unused, so if it were repealed, that would be fine with me. It is facially Constitutional as far as I can see, but could be applied Unconstitutionally, so the validity would be case by case.

Sounds like a job for the legislature to me.....do we still believe that we should work through that process?

 

[chipbennett]

It is facially Constitutional as far as I can see, but could be applied Unconstitutionally, so the validity would be case by case.

If I am walking down the street, conducting my affairs in a lawful manner, and a police officer orders me to come to his aid (in any manner), under penalty of law, I am not free to go. I am therefore being detained. That detention is not subject to any investigation of unlawful activity on my part, nor is it a result of a warrant sworn against an affidavit of probable cause of any unlawful activity on my part. How can it possibly comply with the Fourth Amendment?