YW
But. Yes it is logically and legally true.
If an officer has legal grounds to demand entry into a residence, then the occupant has a legal duty to allow the entry or he is obstructing the officer.
If however the officer has no legal grounds to enter the resident had every right to resist that entry.
It's one way or the other. I personally know how it is because I've had to be involved in such things.
The cops had no grounds to enter and should not have remained there. They acted out of pure petulance at being told no, indicated by the instant and illegal arrest of the person who told them no.
The judges ARE covering the cops and FD backside while trying keep their decision from being overturned by straddling the fence.
That argument is inherently flawed. While I agree that it is generally wise to comply with errant officer commands, it cannot always required by law. Two different views from the law should be applied: What are the officers
allowed to do? And, what is the citizen
required to do?
While the officers were wrong—and the facts in court established that they were wrong—they reasonably believed that they were right. The defendant had more facts at hand and knew that they were wrong. So, while, if he actively thwarted the cops, that would likely be obstruction, he reasonably has no duty to aid them in making what he knows is a mistake.
While, IMO, it was unwise not to open the door, why would the defendant not have the Right to just stay out of the way of potential danger, and let the errant cops dig their own hole.
It amazes me how that so often on OCDO non-compliance with errant police commands is encouraged, but in a case where it helps the argument at hand, compliance becomes required.
I recommend compliance. I believe that you will fare better in the after-action. However, that does not mean that compliance is or should be required by law.
Again, thank you for demonstrating rational disagreement.