KPRC 2 recently identified a notable trend in Montgomery County: from 2017 to 2025, the number of Interference with Public Duties cases filed in the county increased by nearly 700 percent, and a majority of those cases were ultimately dismissal.
When arrests increase that dramatically while so many of the resulting cases are dismissed, it is worth asking whether the criminal justice system is functioning in a just and efficient manner as it relates to this particular charge.
The reporting identified a problem. Texas law may already provide part of the solution.
Montgomery County should stop making custodial Interference with Public Duties arrests in marginal cases where the real complaint is simply that a citizen refused to follow a lawful police command.
That does not mean citizens should be free to ignore police officers. Quite the opposite. Texas law already provides a specific offense for willfully refusing to comply with a lawful police order: Texas Transportation Code § 542.501.
Interference With Public Duties is a real crime. Texas Penal Code § 38.15 makes it a criminal offense to interrupt, disrupt, impede, or otherwise interfere with a peace officer who is performing a lawful duty. The offense is a Class B misdemeanor. Texas law also specifically provides a defense when the alleged interference consists of speech alone. However, there are, in practice, far too many situations where citizens are being charged, but there is no actual interference and no actual criminal negligence on the part of the citizen.
A Class B misdemeanor is not insignificant. It carries the possibility of up to 180 days in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
There are certainly cases where that charge is justified.
Someone who physically blocks an officer from making an arrest, repeatedly inserts himself into an active investigation, interferes with emergency personnel, physically obstructs officers, or otherwise prevents an officer from carrying out a lawful duty may very well have committed Interference with Public Duties.
Those are not the cases I am talking about.
My concern is with the marginal cases, the traffic stop that turns into an arrest because somebody is argumentative, frightened, stubborn, slow to comply, or refuses a command even though the person never meaningfully obstructs the officer’s ability to perform his duties.
Those cases need a different tool. Fortunately, the Legislature has already provided one.
Texas Transportation Code § 542.501 Provides the Middle Ground
Texas Transportation Code § 542.501 states that a person may not “wilfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction” of a police officer.
When no different punishment is provided for an offense under that portion of the Transportation Code, the general punishment is a fine between $1 and $200.
In other words, Texas, law recognizes a distinction between refusing a lawful police direction and actually interfering with a police officer’s duties. Montgomery County should recognize that distinction too.
Consider a driver who is lawfully stopped and repeatedly ordered to remain in the vehicle, step out of the vehicle, stand in a particular location, or otherwise follow a reasonable direction connected with the traffic stop. The driver may disagree with the officer. The driver may believe the command is unnecessary. The driver may even turn out to be correct about the underlying traffic accusation. But a citizen’s disagreement with an officer does not necessarily give the citizen the right to disregard a lawful command.
Texas courts have already applied § 542.501 in this context. In Hedtke v. State, a driver repeatedly exited her vehicle during a traffic stop after being instructed to return to it. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld her conviction under § 542.501 and explained that the statute applied to police orders given during the course of a lawful traffic investigation. That is precisely why § 542.501 offers such a sensible alternative.
If the misconduct is refusing the lawful order, charge the refusal. If the misconduct actually interferes with an officer’s duties, charge the interference. Those are not necessarily the same thing.
Citizens Should Comply With Lawful Commands During Traffic Stops
None of this should be understood as advice for citizens to test the limits of police authority on the side of the highway.
They should not.
Citizens would be wise to listen carefully to an officer’s instructions and comply with lawful commands during a traffic stop. Questions about whether an officer acted appropriately can usually be addressed later in court, through an attorney, through a departmental complaint, or through other legal channels.
One particularly important example involves an officer ordering a driver out of a vehicle. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the United States Supreme Court held that after a vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, an officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment. The Court concluded that the additional intrusion on the driver was minimal when weighed against legitimate officer-safety concerns.
So, remember, if you are lawfully stopped and an officer orders you out of the vehicle, get out of the vehicle.
You can disagree with the officer. You can remember what happened. You can request body-camera footage. You can call a lawyer afterward. If the officer violated your rights, that issue can be litigated later.
The roadside is generally a terrible place to litigate constitutional law.
But recognizing that citizens should comply does not mean every act of noncompliance needs to result in handcuffs, booking, attorney’s fees, missed work, and months of criminal litigation.
Everybody Benefits From Using the Right Charge
Using § 542.501 in appropriate cases would benefit virtually every participant in the criminal justice system.
Police officers benefit because their lawful authority remains enforceable. An officer does not have to simply tolerate deliberate refusal of a lawful traffic-related command.
Citizens benefit because a moment of poor judgment or noncompliance does not automatically become a custodial Class B misdemeanor arrest carrying the possibility of jail. The norm for a Class C ticket level citation would be to ticket and release.
Prosecutors benefit because the District Attorney’s Office receives fewer marginal Interference cases that require review, wasting resources, and eventual dismissal.
Judges and county courts benefit because fewer weak Class B misdemeanor cases consume limited court resources.
Taxpayers benefit because arresting, booking, housing, prosecuting, appointing counsel when necessary, and ultimately dismissing a criminal case all cost money.
And when a fine is collected for the ticket when using the more correct, reduced charge, Texas Transportation Code § 542.402 directs that revenue toward purposes including roads, highway-law enforcement, and county traffic officers.
That should not be the primary reason to choose the proper charge, the charge should always fit the conduct, but it certainly makes more sense than repeatedly spending public resources processing marginal arrests that ultimately go nowhere.
Montgomery County Should Change Its Approach
KPRC’s reporting should prompt a serious review by Montgomery County law enforcement agencies and prosecutors.
A nearly 700 percent increase in Interference with Public Duties cases followed by a majority of cases ending in dismissal is not a statistic the system should simply shrug off.
Police agencies should train officers to distinguish between genuine interference and simple refusal to obey a lawful command. In appropriate traffic-stop cases, officers should strongly consider citation-level enforcement under § 542.501 rather than defaulting to a custodial Interference arrest. Officers also have a responsibility to deescalate when circumstances allow. Not every confused, frightened, frustrated, or slow-to-comply citizen is trying to challenge police authority. In many situations, a calm explanation of what the officer is asking, why the interaction is taking place, why the instruction matters, and what will happen if the person refuses can resolve the encounter without an arrest or citation. Too often, routine encounters escalate because irritation is mistaken for defiance and defiance is treated as a personal affront. Professional policing requires patience, restraint, and the ability to distinguish genuine obstruction from a citizen who simply would benefit from clearer instruction or a kinder disposition.
If you’ve been charged with Interference with Public Duty, reach out to Alsbrooks Law. We can help.