I have searched the case law and observed trials that seemed to revolve around this topic, but I have not yet found a clear and binding definition. On Wikipedia, “legal order” redirects to “higher orders”, which has more to do with the defense of Nuremberg. Therefore, I must limit the scope of the question and give an opinion only for context. Courts may issue the following types of orders, among others: According to Florida Law 316.072, you are breaking the law if you disobey a lawful order from a police officer. In general, this law applies to traffic offences, but can also be applied to other situations. A person can be prosecuted under this law if they drive, walk, or ride a bicycle on a Florida highway and deliberately refuse to obey a lawful order or instruction from a police officer. Military, military law, Uniform Code of Military Justice, unlawful orders In my view, the term “lawful” in the term “lawful order” implies that there is a particular law or law that requires a person to comply with the details of the “lawful order”. The absence of this restriction, so that a “lawful order” does not require a specific law to enforce the law, amounts to giving law enforcement the power to create laws by mere declaration. Combined with the legally sanctioned power to lie with the same statements, this leads to a blatant concentration of power. Work you may not need to do.
It would generally be illegal to ask you to: It is tempting to suggest that Congress or the executive branch clarify the law on illegal orders, but military law is probably as clear as it can be given the vagaries of military operations, honourable Congressman. Trump`s indifference to previously accepted government norms, the country`s current turmoil, and the large number of people authorized to issue military orders. Although the precedents are not known to the average soldier, every judge is trained in these matters, and any soldier who seriously doubts the legality of an order should seek legal advice unless immediate action is required. If it is not practical to seek legal advice, a soldier faced with an order of questionable legality may also contact a superior officer and request that the order be revoked. All parties to these meetings would benefit greatly if the law clarified, whether through legislation or judicial review, what officials can and cannot legally order during traffic stops. Better understanding and clearer guidance would reduce anxiety for both sides during these meetings. Until such clarity is achieved, we should expect an ongoing confrontation between otherwise reasonable people who impose their own views on what is permissible and what is not permitted under the current law. If you are facing a criminal conviction for failing to comply with a legal order in North Port, The Law Place can help. To successfully charge you with this crime, a prosecutor would have to prove that the officer gave you legal instructions and that you deliberately disobeyed them. There are a number of possible defenses for this crime, and it is possible that your charge will be reduced or dismissed with the help of the right lawyer. Contact us today at (941) 444-4444 and let us help you get your life back on track. Our lawyers are always at your disposal.
The search for the “lawful” in the licit order is like the search for reason in rational man. It will almost always be a rule defined by its violations and “know-it-if-I-see-it” because there is no way to encompass all possible permutations. But what shades of gray could emerge on the current canvas? Suppose a senior officer orders a soldier in uniform to attend a political rally. This would clearly be illegal because Department of Defense regulations prohibit partisan political activities in the service or use of public resources. But what if the order was to participate in a non-military campaign outfit – perhaps wearing a Make America Great Again cap? It is also an illegal order, for the same reason and because it serves no valid military purpose. What if a member of the armed forces had been ordered to serve as the backdrop for Trump`s photo op in front of St. John`s Episcopal Church near the White House? Such an order would have very clearly had “as its sole purpose the realization of a private goal” – political gain. Only legitimate orders should be followed. The Court Martial Manual says about the legality of orders: A number of states, including Texas, Illinois, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and New York, have legal laws on their books. These laws prohibit citizens from obeying lawful orders from police officers authorized to regulate or control traffic. However, most courts, including those in Texas, are largely silent on the definition of what constitutes a “lawful order” in the context of traffic stops. Indeed, we have to go back to 1973 to find a court that expresses its opinion on the difficulty of defining a “legal order”.
Menschen v. Jennings, 347 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Just. Ct. 1973). In Jennings, the court categorically rejected the prosecutor`s assertion that “lawful” means any order “that does not compel the operator to break the law.” The court noted that the adoption of such a definition would expose the “passing motorist to the slightest whim” of the official authorized to direct traffic. Unfortunately, the Court then adopted the ambiguous rule that an injunction is lawful if it was “reasonably designed to achieve its purpose.” The court did not further define the term “lawful order” and did not describe the legitimate objectives to be achieved by a particular order.