State v. Arlyn v. Orr, 335 P.3d 51

Orr was convicted by jury of resisting and obstructing officers after a DUI-related incident in which deputies approached a running vehicle with Orr inside; Orr refused to exit for field sobriety testing after deputies observed signs of intoxication.
Deputies observed five open beer cans, odor of alcohol, and Orr’s slurred speech, glassy eyes, and impaired memory; Orr initially refused to exit the vehicle and was eventually removed using force including pepper spray.
Orr submitted to breath tests at the sheriff’s office showing he was over the legal limit; he was charged with DUI (enhanced felony), possession of an open container, and resisting/obstructing officers.
The district court convicted Orr of felony DUI and the resisting/obstructing count after trial; the resisting/obstructing count required proof that Orr resisted, delayed, or obstructed a public officer in the discharge of a duty.
On appeal, Orr challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for resisting and obstructing—specifically, that refusing field sobriety tests could not be criminal conduct and that he did not know the officers’ requests were lawful.
The court held the evidence sufficient, clarifying that knowledge of the officer’s lawful act is not required as an element, and that the officers were lawfully conducting a DUI investigation with permissible field sobriety testing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for resisting and obstructing	Orr: refusal to perform field sobriety tests cannot be criminal	State: lawful investigative actions justify the testing	Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed.
Knowledge of lawfulness as an element	Orr: defendant must know orders are lawful	Orr: subjective belief matters	Subjective belief not required; must know officer was performing an official act.
Lawfulness of detention and officer actions	Orr: questioning legality of officer’s requests	Orr: actions during DUI investigation were lawful under precedent	Detention and tests lawful; no relief for Orr.

State v. Bishop, 203 P.3d 1203 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009) (elements include knowledge of officer’s duty; duty includes lawful acts)
State v. Adams, 67 P.3d 103 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003) (element requiring knowledge of officer’s official act)
State v. Wilkerson, 755 P.2d 471 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988) (duty comprises lawful and authorized acts; mental state not required for knowledge of lawfulness)
State v. Winter, 135 P. 739 (Idaho 1913) (historical basis for knowledge of official duty element)
State v. Goerig, 822 P.2d 1005 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991) (recognizes resisting elements include acting against an officer’s duties)
State v. Buell, 175 P.3d 216 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008) (reasonable suspicion allows field sobriety tests as part of DUI investigation)