Is it a violation?

[Mommyof2Girls]

What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania

Tonight I was sitting at my computer when I heard a lot of noise outside. I step out on my front porch with my two older children, age 20 and 18, to see what the noise was about. We live in a very small town, its not even a town it is a borough. Anyway it seems there was some kids fighting in the middle of the street. A neighbor called the police, which was what they needed to do. The police officer that was called came over to my porch (which was about 100 feet away from the fight) and told us to go inside the house. Now I am 34 years old and my children are over the age of 18. I just couldnt see how he could come up to us and tell us we need to go in our house. We were not causing any trouble, just standing out there quietly (basically just being nosy). I told the police officer that I was standing on my own property with my children and that he could not send us in the house as if we were breaking a curfew violation. He proceeds to tell me that he can make me go in the house and if I refuse he will arrest me. I told him (now I never raised my voice) that I would not go inside and that if he wanted to arrest me he would have to come on my property to do so. I informed him if he made that choice I would contact my lawyer, that he was violating my rights. He got angry and walked away yelling at me telling me I let my children drink in my garage, ( he walked away acting like a child that had to have the last word) I told him this was not true and he said to me, " We will see!" For one I have a swimming pool in my back yard and a deck and a patio that the children go out to at night. It is their home and they can use it as they wish. Kids dont hang in my garage because it is just that, a garage that is packed full of so much stuff my car can not fit in it let alone a bunch of kids. And they sure are not drinking because I dead set against alcohol.

Can a police officer force me or my adult children to get off our porch and go in our house for no reason what so ever? Was his behavior a violation of my rights?

 

[Ohiogal]

If a police officer gives you a legal order and you do not follow you can be arrested.

 

[magic55]

Well I dont know all of the situation but maybe he was just looking out for your own saftey. It would all depend on the situation. But Ohiogal is right for the most part. Its situational.

 

[fairisfair]

Well I dont know all of the situation but maybe he was just looking out for your own saftey. It would all depend on the situation. But Ohiogal is right for the most part. Its situational.

Ohiogal is not "right for the most part" she is totally correct. It is NOT "situational", she was given a directive by an officer, she could have been arrested.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

34 year old woman and kids that are 20 and 18? Oh Brother!

 

[tranquility]

Ohiogal is correct.

However, what is a "legal order"?

Can the police tell a person who is on the porch of their own property to go inside the house now? Yes. Would the person be in legal trouble if she did not follow the order? That is the part where magic55 is correct and fairisfair is wrong. It is an inherently situational question to determine the legality of the order.

"Stop, police!" called by a police officer who is pointing a weapon at a person walking out of a bank with a stocking on his head, and the person then stops, would be an example of a legal order.

That same "Stop, police!" when said to an overweight person wearing spandex on the police officer's theory of spandex being a privilege and not a right, and the person stops at the order, would be an example of an illegal detention and the officer would be the one in legal trouble and not the complying person.

Of course, since there was no compliance here, there was not a violation of the OP's rights. But, absent some facts, some "situational" information, about what was happening and the officer's reasoning for ordering the OP inside, I don't see a "legal order" here.

 

[fairisfair]

the order in this case was, go inside your home.
It was not situational. It was not open to negotiation based on the posters age, or the age of her children, nor the fact that they were on their own property. Their presence was preventing him from carrying out his duties, and could have resulted in injury either to the officer, the people on the porch, or those involved in the altercation.

Now, pull up your spandex, and get off my porch. LOL

 

[tranquility]

What duty was the officer prevented from performing because the OP did not leave the porch? There is nothing I can see from the OP's description which would indicate the officer's need to order her about. I don't see the legal order here without more facts. In fact, when the OP did not follow the order, the officer when back about his business.

I don't see an obstruction charge here (Or, whatever they call it in Pennsylvania.). No constitutional violation because an officer can always *ask*, even if he doesn't have the right to *order*.

 

[seniorjudge]

What duty was the officer prevented from performing because the OP did not leave the porch? There is nothing I can see from the OP's description which would indicate the officer's need to order her about. I don't see the legal order here without more facts. In fact, when the OP did not follow the order, the officer when back about his business.

I don't see an obstruction charge here (Or, whatever they call it in Pennsylvania.). No constitutional violation because an officer can always *ask*, even if he doesn't have the right to *order*.

Q: What duty was the officer prevented from performing because the OP did not leave the porch?

A: Irrelevant.

 

[fairisfair]

What duty was the officer prevented from performing because the OP did not leave the porch? There is nothing I can see from the OP's description which would indicate the officer's need to order her about. I don't see the legal order here without more facts. In fact, when the OP did not follow the order, the officer when back about his business.

I don't see an obstruction charge here (Or, whatever they call it in Pennsylvania.). No constitutional violation because an officer can always *ask*, even if he doesn't have the right to *order*.

Any duty that he would have been free to perform had he not been forced to argue with her to get her butt in the house.

 

[CdwJava]

The officer can order the person or people inside. If they refuse, they can be arrested. It would then be up to a court to decide if the original order was lawful or not.

In this situation i can think of a couple of reasons why it might be a lawful order, and even more reasons why it would not be.

The bottom line is that a person defies the officer at their own risk ... the police just MAY know something more about the situation then the neighborhood loogy-loos do.

- Carl

 

[Mommyof2Girls]

Didnt get a chance to get back

Okay firstly, the 20 year old and 18 year old are my adoptive children but are MY children all the same no matter what my age or the situation.

The situation you ask was two teenage boys were having an argument over a girl. By the time the neighbor called the police all the kids ran off, except one who is constantly arguing with this particular officer. He just told her to shut up and go about her own business. I personally think he was just mad because there was no one there for him to arrest. He has stated to me in the past that he like arresting people.

The facts are simple here. There was an argument between two boys. The police was called. The kids took off. The police showed up and no one was there except the town loud mouth. We, as adults, were sitting on my front porch, well its really a side porch but we use that door as the main door. It is dark on that side of the house. The incident was no less than 100 feet away from where we were sitting. We were making no disturbance of our own. The police officer marched over to us, thinking it was just my kids, and told them to get into the house. I can up from the chair and without raising my voice told him we would not go inside that we are all adults, it is my property, my children and we have the right to sit there. He told me if we did not go inside he would arrest ME. I said that is fine, you will have to come up on my property to do so and I will contact my lawyer if he follows through with his threat. He stormed off yelling about me letting kids drink in my garage, which I found very amusing. He went to his car, yelled at the young lady to shut her mouth and go about her way, then he got in his car and left. There was never a threat full situation and we were not bothering anyone. If you really think about it, if an officer can just tell you to go inside because he feels like it, and there is a law saying he can do so or you will be arrested, where is the freedom?

If this is the case,when my younger children are out swimming in our pool they can tell them to get out and go into the house, because they feel like it! Don't tell me its apples and oranges, we were doing our own thing on our own property and not breaking any laws but can be "sent to our rooms" because they want us there.

 

[seniorjudge]

Okay firstly, the 20 year old and 18 year old are my adoptive children but are MY children all the same no matter what my age or the situation.

The situation you ask was two teenage boys were having an argument over a girl. By the time the neighbor called the police all the kids ran off, except one who is constantly arguing with this particular officer. He just told her to shut up and go about her own business. I personally think he was just mad because there was no one there for him to arrest. He has stated to me in the past that he like arresting people.

The facts are simple here. There was an argument between two boys. The police was called. The kids took off. The police showed up and no one was there except the town loud mouth. We, as adults, were sitting on my front porch, well its really a side porch but we use that door as the main door. It is dark on that side of the house. The incident was no less than 100 feet away from where we were sitting. We were making no disturbance of our own. The police officer marched over to us, thinking it was just my kids, and told them to get into the house. I can up from the chair and without raising my voice told him we would not go inside that we are all adults, it is my property, my children and we have the right to sit there. He told me if we did not go inside he would arrest ME. I said that is fine, you will have to come up on my property to do so and I will contact my lawyer if he follows through with his threat. He stormed off yelling about me letting kids drink in my garage, which I found very amusing. He went to his car, yelled at the young lady to shut her mouth and go about her way, then he got in his car and left. There was never a threat full situation and we were not bothering anyone. If you really think about it, if an officer can just tell you to go inside because he feels like it, and there is a law saying he can do so or you will be arrested, where is the freedom?

If this is the case,when my younger children are out swimming in our pool they can tell them to get out and go into the house, because they feel like it! Don't tell me its apples and oranges, we were doing our own thing on our own property and not breaking any laws but can be "sent to our rooms" because they want us there.

If a cop tells you to go in the house, then go in the house. That's common sense.

 

[tranquility]

As with Carl, I could think of a couple of reasons why the officer's order would be legal. I don't see those reasons in the fact given, but we can all suppose. What's the saying? If my mother had four wheels and bell, she'd be a trolley car.

Seniorjudge may be right as to PA law, but not generally. Most obstruction statutes are written to require an interference with the officer's (or other government worker)'s duties. It's usually one of the elements. Hardly, irrelevant.

Rights don't always comport with common sense. On the internet, there are guidelines for watching the police do their job. Certain organizations have found the police act more legal-like when they know there are witnesses. It isn't sensical to put yourself at risk to help others, but there are many types of heroes. The OP was just curious and was not being a hero. The concept is the same as to why she can watch, however.

(Again, without additional facts which would indicate a lawful order rather than an officer who is embarrassed about people who saw his interaction with a rable rouser.)