State v. Seidel

A person is considered to have interfered with a peace officer when the person refuses to obey “a lawful order by the peace officer.” ORS 162.247(1). A lawful order is an order “authorized by, and not contrary to, substantive law.” State v. Ausmus, 336 Or 493, 504, 85 P3d 864 (2003).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for interfering with a peace officer after he refused to obey a police officer at an Astoria City Council meeting. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued that the order, asking him to leave the city council meeting, from the police officer was not “lawful” because Oregon’s Public Meeting Law does not allow for the exclusion of people in a public meeting and forum. A person is considered to have interfered with a peace officer when the person refuses to obey “a lawful order by the peace officer.” ORS 162.247(1). A lawful order is an order “authorized by, and not contrary to, substantive law.” State v. Ausmus, 336 Or 493, 504, 85 P3d 864 (2003). The Court held that the Mayor had authority “under the city charter to preserve the order at the city council meeting” and when he asked the police officer to remove the Defendant from the meeting, the order from the police officer was not unlawful. Affirmed.