A Rock Hill ordinance that allows police to arrest someone for not obeying commands such as "stop" and "cross the street" without a reason is being challenged as a violation of residents' constitutional rights.

B.J. Barrowclough, deputy public defender for York County, argues the city's "resisting police" law violates a citizen's first and fourth amendment rights because it's so broad and vague that it can make it illegal to walk across the street or to speak.

Barrowclough disputed the legality of the ordinance in Rock Hill Municipal Court last month, saying it gives officers excessive authority to arrest. Attorneys await a written decision from Municipal Judge Peter J. Lenzi Jr.

"The way Rock Hill police use the statute is unconstitutional," Barrowclough said. "The way they often employ it, they make it a crime to disobey their instructions."

That ordinance reads:

"No person shall oppose, resist or interfere with any police officer in the discharge of the police officer's official duties."

The law exists to help police safely do their jobs, said Rock Hill Solicitor Chris Barton.

"There's any number of ways people find themselves in the crosshairs of a resisting police charge," Barton said. "It gives police the ability to do their job without interference."

Resisting police is distinct from the charge of resisting arrest, in which a person eludes an officer who has probable cause to arrest him, or threatens or uses force against an officer.

In the past year, Rock Hill police have issued more than 150 citations for resisting police, Lt. Brad Redfearn said. He referred other questions about the law to Barton.

Police often use the statute to stop people suspected of trespassing or to get identification from those hanging out in known drug neighborhoods.

Barrowclough said Rock Hill residents should be outraged at how police continue to use this ordinance.

"It's violating people's rights all over the city of Rock Hill," he said. "Police can't approach a citizen on the street without reasonable suspicion of a crime and grab him and charge him with the crime of running away.

"I see it as my job as a public defender to right these wrongs."

Prosecutors say law enforcement officers have the right to investigate trespassing and other crimes.

To do that, city Solicitor Paula Knox Brown said in the municipal court hearing, they need to talk to people.

The resisting police ordinance dates back to at least 2001 when the municipal code was last substantially revised, said Barton. The city manager and City Council signed off on it in Nov. 2001.

'Right to disobey'

The case that prompted Barrowclough's challenge stems from an incident last November in which Rock Hill resident Terry Brown was charged with resisting police after walking to his own apartment on Fargo Street.

In that case, police saw six men outside an apartment complex around 9:30 p.m., according to court documents. As officers got out of their car, two of the men walked away, and then ran into an apartment over police commands to stop.

Police found one of those men, Brown, in his apartment and arrested him. Resisting police is the only crime Brown is charged with committing. An additional resisting arrest charge has already been dismissed, and he wasn't wanted or charged for another underlying offense.

"In this country, you are free to ignore commands of police," Barrowclough said. "Mr. Brown has the right to disobey those orders and go into his own house.

"If police have probable cause you've committed a crime, then they can detain and question you legally. The city doesn't need this ordinance to detain you if they have suspicion to arrest you."

Similar law struck down

Rock Hill's ordinance is a "mirror image" of a Houston, Texas, ordinance called assaulting or interfering with policemen, Barrowclough said. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated that law for being too broad, he said, and found criticism of police to be speech protected by the constitution.

The city is not on its own in South Carolina, Barton said. Municipalities all over the state - and in neighboring states - have resisting police laws similar to Rock Hill's, he said.

Some speech and interactions with police are constitutionally protected, Barrowclough said. However, under Rock Hill's ordinance people can be charged with resisting police for being verbally argumentative. The statute doesn't put people on any sort of notice. People can be cited at any time, doing a lot of things.

That was the case for a 13-year-old boy riding bikes with some friends on Eden Terrace in Rock Hill last month. Officers asked them to stop and the teen turned around and rode away from police, a Rock Hill police report said. Police pursued the boy, following him as he ditched the bike and jumped two fences.

After saturating the area with officers, that teen was found walking on Cherry Road. He told officers he ran because "he doesn't like the police," the report said. The report says his only offense is resisting police.

Barrowclough tackled this ordinance before in another similar case. He said the judge suppressed evidence as a result of the challenge, but didn't rule on the constitutionality of the statute.

Even if Judge Lenzi finds the law unconstitutional, Barrowclough said he doesn't know if it will change how officers enforce it. He said he plans to appeal to Circuit Court if Lenzi rules against him.

If the charge stands, Brown is scheduled to have a bench trial later this month.