TEXAS PENAL CODE
§ 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY.
(2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move
issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace
officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of
the premises:
(A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of
those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or
(B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those
gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.
(b) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render
impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or
hazardous.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
This makes it legal for a police officer or fireman to request or order people to move when maintaining public safety in dangerous proximity to a hazard. Arguments can be made all day about just what "dangerous proximity" means, and that would be an issue for a court/jury to determine. Like I said earlier, our rights are unfortunately absolute, even though we like to think they are. The portion of the law the Brian violated came from refusing to move along when the police officer told him to. He allegedly said that he made the decision that because of what he was doing, he was not going to move. Reporting to the NWS is not "legal privilege or authority" which would exclude him from the reasonable request to move. His right to be in the rest area was superseded by the police officer's need to maintain public safety. According to the News West 9 story, Brian said he thought it was his "obligation to stay and follow the storms" after being told by the deputy to leave. Apparently the deputy told him to leave and he said he was "helping out the NWS in San Angelo" to which the deputy replied that he didn't care and Brian had to leave. At that point Brian decided not to comply. He was given the second chance when the deputy listened to his explanation for being there and repeated his request.
(NOTE: The videos from the first post are mentioned once again below, so I'll repost the link to them
here for reference.)
The law you stated above - which was the law apparently applied to Brian to charge him - does not
itself give the officer legal authority to move Brian and his van due to danger, since this law deals directly with unlawful road obstruction. The officer must state to Brian under this law
not that Brian himself is in danger, but that he is
presenting an obstruction to the dispersement of others from a dangerous area. Section B, in bold but not underlined above, is written with the intention that this officer has authority to ask Brian to move his vehicle
if and only if his position potentially obstructs others from safely evacuating. Note on the side this can mean that the officer can ask Brian to leave
even if he would have otherwise had total and complete legal right to stay in a normal situation.
Some notes proving that the local department was incorrect in their charge:
*Brain's position was in a rest area, parked correctly on the side of the throughway designated for vehicle stoppage. Evidence for this statement comes from the fact that trash cans are present on the side of the rest area's throughway, and also that the throughway was wide enough to allow reasonably safe passage relative to the size of the throughway itself. Therefore, Brian's vehicle did not potentially impede traffic flow from the danger area in the physical sense.
*At any rate, the officer stated on the video that the above was not the actual charge for Brian. The officer
clearly charged on the tape that he believed Brian's position wasn't
physically impeding anyone, but instead was impeding dispersement due to the deputy's judgment that the chase vehicle
presented a distraction to those leaving the area. This statement was given to Brian to present how the officer believed the law was broken and why he was arresting Brian; once again, it can be heard plainly on the raw video.
*Should that department stuck with the shaky reason the officer gave Brian for the arrest (presenting a distraction that impeded evacuation from a dangerous area), Brian could still have been easily acquitted in court; however, the
department did not follow correct procedure, and changed the nature of Brian's charge significantly (changing to charging Brian with obstructing the park sideroad). The raw video as opposed to Brian's actual charge shows this change. Even though the same law is still stated against Brian, law enforcement cannot change the
way in which they believe the law was broken if they lack sufficient evidence to both overturn the officer's stated reason for arrest and establish a new angle to the charge. As I stated above, there was no evidence for, and there is plenty of evidence against, Brian's vehicle presenting a "reasonable" impediment to evacuation from a dangerous area. The department should have followed procedure and stood by the deputy's word. They didn't.
*Therefore, Brian could probably be acquitted by Harvey Birdman, more or less a hired attourney, if the case even survives to trial.
------------------------
Some other points to make:
*The deputy, if he knew his stuff, would have recognized his right to force Brian and his chase crew to leave the area under the following law, of which everyone should be aware while in Texas:
§ 545.305. REMOVAL OF UNLAWFULLY STOPPED VEHICLE.
(a) A peace officer listed under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal
Procedure, or a license and weight inspector of the department may
remove or require the operator or a person in charge of a vehicle to
move a vehicle from a highway if the vehicle:
... (9) is, in the opinion of the officer, a hazard,
interferes with a normal function of a governmental agency, or
because of a catastrophe, emergency, or unusual circumstance is
imperiled.
(b) An officer acting under Subsection (a) may require that
the vehicle be taken to:
(1) the nearest garage or other place of safety
This means any officer can issue a "nice" reason to any chaser parked near a storm the officer considers dangerous, to move their vehicles, as this law states clearly that officers may require drivers to move their property off of public roads that are in what he considers a dangerous area. Note the officer's decision is now directly about the danger of the situation where the vehicle is present, and no longer (as in Brian's case) about deciding whether the vehicle presents a risk somehow to motorists exiting the danger area. So be aware - at least in Texas - that peace officers do have the right to ask you to move your private property off of public roadways they consider in danger, if you are parked alongside such an area. It doesn't mean it's moral for them to do so, but they do have the legal authority to tell you to do so - and you have the right to attempt to convince the officer (peacefully) why you are not placing yourself in the danger he believes is present for you.
* The officer is not some bully looking to pick fights. He was nervous and disheveled about the storm, as was said by Brian on his blog, and probably thought he was being some superhero by "saving" the chase van's occupants and all the lookie-loos from what he no doubt believed to be Brian's evil clutches and poor decision-making. He probably believes everyone out on a storm is trying to be in their own version of Twister, and his harsh language against Brian during his scolding really proved that. Imagine hearing about a chaser on these boards intentionally driving headlong into an EF-5 thinking he's gonna be fine - we'd call him the same names and drag him by the neck out of there if it came to that. From this deputy's perspective, Brian is the same kind of fool, and such misinformation is yet another clear case for severe training for all emergency personnel.
He wasn't looking to start a fight or flex his muscle or take out all his childhood anguish on Brian. If he was, he would've thrown Brian to the ground and broken his nose at the six-second mark in the "raw" video, when Brian turned straight into the officer's face and lunged angrily at him before wisely thinking twice and stopping himself a few inches in. What Brian did wasn't at all threatening in and of itself, but given that I've seen Wichita Falls cops gang-tackle arrested people for simply arguing with them, this deputy could have reacted violently to Brian's lunge and probably gotten away with it. It's probably for that reason that there will be no reprimand on this officer, since his superiors will overblow Brian's reaction and say "the guy was violent and uncooperative anyway."
*Related to all this mess, I dread truly for the day where an officer lays a reckless endangerment felony charge on the driver of a chase van if the driver initially complies then is caught turning right back around into the storm. I don't think this particular story will be of significant national importance, but I can see a true chaser-hater LOE leveling a felony RE charge on a chase van driver while the hapless passengers with cameras strapped around their neck look on with wide, horrified eyes. A wandering LOE could see the van heading straight in to a tornado, for instance, and as experienced and trained as the driver may be, a judge and jury of laypersons might still look at the stigma of a tornado above all of that. Knock on wood if such a thing ever happens, but reckless endangerment could be a viable charge a true arsehole LOE could levy knowing that Joe Public in the courtroom won't understand the concept of being trained to reasonable safety.