Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:56 (2026)

A. No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or weights and standards police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§56. Obedience to police officers, weights and standards police officers, and traffic signs

A. No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or weights and standards police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.

B. No person shall fail or refuse to comply with the instruction or direction of any traffic control device which has been erected under authority of this Chapter or other law of this state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 113, §1, eff. June 22, 1977.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Theriot v. Bergeron, 939 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Theriot v. Bergeron, 939 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “32:56 and 32:231, that he proceeded in "a careful and safe manner," and that he "took reasonable steps to insure that he safely traversed the intersection which included obeying the instruction of Trooper Billiot who motioned [Bergeron] to proceed through the intersection.”

Landry v. State Farm Ins. Co., 529 So. 2d 417 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The record also reflects that Jacqueline Hughes was issued a citation pursuant *427 to LSA-R.S. 32:56 for failure to obey officer's traffic signal.”

United States v. Morris, 40 F.4th 323 (5th Cir. 2022). “R.S. 32:56; Landry v. State Farm Ins. Co.”

State v. Jones, 115 So. 3d 643 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 32:56(B). He further asserted that he had pled guilty to all of these traffic charges on November 30, 2010, and had paid fines.”

Harrington v. Velinsky, 567 So. 2d 148 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “They argue that LSA-R.S. 32:56 provides that no person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer invested by law with the authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.”

Sutter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 167 So. 2d 517 (La. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “bey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer * * While directions of a traffic officer do not completely relieve a motorist of all…”

Linares v. Louisiana, Dept. of Transp., 582 So. 2d 879 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “The court noted that under R.S. 32:56 and 32:234 a flashing red light is intended to direct a driver to stop.”

State v. Knight, 574 So. 2d 483 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “Likewise, LSA-R.S. 32:56 provides that no person shall fail or refuse to comply with the instruction or direction of any traffic control device which has been erected under the authority of the Highway Regulatory Act or any other law of this state.”

Goff v. Sarradet, 394 So. 2d 655 (La. Ct. App. 1980). “LSA-R.S. 32:56(A) 1 and LSA-R.S. 32:231 2 impose a duty upon the operator of a motor vehicle to comply with any lawful order or directive of any police officer invested by law with the authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.”

Murray v. Kuhn, 345 So. 2d 917 (La. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “R.S. 32:56(B) makes it an offense to refuse or fail to comply with instructions of traffic control devices, and R.”

State of Louisiana Versus Husam Odeh (La. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 11× “R.S. 32:56. Immediately after finding the defendant guilty, the trial court sentenced defendant to a fine of $50.”

Ronquille v. Martin, 449 So. 2d 1126 (La. Ct. App. 1984). “Further, the law requires all motorists to obey all traffic control devices placed by the Department, LSA-R.S. 32:56(B), under penalty of criminal sanctions, LSA-R.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:56(A) — 6 cases

Theriot v. Bergeron, 939 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “32:56 and 32:231, that he proceeded in "a careful and safe manner," and that he "took reasonable steps to insure that he safely traversed the intersection which included obeying the instruction of Trooper Billiot who motioned [Bergeron] to proceed through the intersection.”

Landry v. State Farm Ins. Co., 529 So. 2d 417 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “The record also reflects that Jacqueline Hughes was issued a citation pursuant *427 to LSA-R.S. 32:56 for failure to obey officer's traffic signal.”

Sutter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 167 So. 2d 517 (La. Ct. App. 1964). “bey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer * * While directions of a traffic officer do not completely relieve a motorist of all…”

Johnson v. Turner (E.D. La. 2022).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:56(B) — 6 cases

State v. Jones, 115 So. 3d 643 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 32:56(B). He further asserted that he had pled guilty to all of these traffic charges on November 30, 2010, and had paid fines.”

Murray v. Kuhn, 345 So. 2d 917 (La. Ct. App. 1977). “R.S. 32:56(B) makes it an offense to refuse or fail to comply with instructions of traffic control devices, and R.”

Burge v. City of Hammond, 489 So. 2d 1320 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Farris v. Jefferson (W.D. La. 2021).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:56(a) — 1 case

Ariente S. Williams v. United States of Am. (E.D. La. 2026).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.