"It does need to be rewritten, we agree," Knox Brown said. "We want to get input before rewriting the law. We don't want to have a law that hinders law enforcement. We want it to be fair, for everyone."
While prosecutors would rewrite the ordinance, the Rock Hill City Council would have to vote to make the changes law.
The current ordinance reads:
"No person shall oppose, resist or interfere with any police officer in the discharge of the police officer's official duties."
Barrowclough argued the law is so broad and vague that it can make it illegal to walk across the street or to speak.
He disputed the legality of the ordinance while representing a client in Rock Hill Municipal Court in May, saying it gives officers excessive authority to arrest.
Instead of waiting for a decision from Municipal Judge Peter J. Lenzi Jr., city solicitors dismissed that case, Knox Brown said, avoiding a ruling and subsequent appeals.
In changing the ordinance, Knox Brown said, the solicitor's office wants to make the wording as clear as possible.
"It's a bit ambiguous," she said. "Want to make sure, in the future, it's clear to law enforcement what is prescribed and what isn't.
"We want to avoid future arguments about its being too vague."
Solicitors are evaluating word choices in similar statutes in North Carolina, Georgia and Oklahoma, Knox Brown said. They will seek input from the public defender's office.
"An easy way to fix the vast majority of the problems is to insert the word 'physical,'" Barrowclough said. "Physically oppose, physically resist or physically interfere.
"It takes most of the speech issues out of the ordinance, and it puts a bright-line rule out there for police. There would be no vagueness."
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. It exists to help police safely do their jobs, solicitors say.
The resisting police ordinance dates back to when the municipal code was last substantially revised. The City Council approved that revision in November 2001.
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 police employ this law to make it a crime to disobey their instructions.
Some speech and interactions with police are constitutionally protected, he said, but 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.
The case that prompted Barrowclough's challenge stems from an incident last November in which Rock Hill resident Terry Brown, 25, 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, according to court documents. As officers got out of their car, two of the men walked away, then ran into an apartment despite police commands to stop.
Officers found Brown in his apartment and arrested him. He was charged with resisting police, not any underlying offense. That charge was dismissed by solicitors in June.
"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."
Through the end of June, Rock Hill police have cited nearly 170 people this year under this law. About a dozen have been charged since the statute was challenged in Municipal Court, police say.
While police continue to make arrests under the statute, Knox Brown said the solicitor's office is evaluating the circumstances of each case of resisting police before prosecuting.
"Cases that only deal with running from police when ordered to stop, as in the (Terry) Brown case, won't be prosecuted at this time," she said.
Instances in which a person is disobeying orders when a warrant is being served or on a case under investigation, she said, will most likely still be prosecuted while the law is being reviewed.
Barrowclough is pleased with the decision to rewrite the ordinance, saying it validates his arguments.
"It's good news that between now and when it's rewritten, the solicitors will evaluate on a case-by-case basis to see if a charge is made unconstitutionally," he said.
The decision to change the law now, Knox Brown said, won't affect those previously convicted of the misdemeanor charge.
"They were convicted under the law at the time," she said. "In most of those cases, the time period for appeals has lapsed."
No one has been convicted of resisting police in Rock Hill since Terry Brown's case was dismissed, Knox Brown said.
No timeline has been given for rewriting the ordinance.
