dissenting.
Respectfully, I must dissent. I have several concerns that cause me to have a view different from that of the majority. In the interests of time and space, I only sketch briefly what troubles me about the court’s holding.
Having carefully read the trial transcript, I find that officer Hagemann of the Moorcroft Police Department had, when arresting appellant, a good faith belief that he was inside the town’s territorial limits. On his first day on the job, several years before the incident in question, the chief of police and the town clerk had told him that the town’s limits included “right to the edge of the tennis courts” which, as shown on trial exhibit 1, a copy of a plat of the town, is well beyond the place where the arrest was made. As marked by officer Hagemann on that trial exhibit, the point of arrest was within the town’s limits as understood by the officer when he arrested appellant. The trial transcript reveals that appellant presented no evidence to contradict officer Hagemann’s good faith belief. In Roberts v. State, 711 P.2d 1131 (Wyo.1985), this court held that an arrestee cannot lawfully resist an arrest based on an invalid warrant which the arresting officer in good faith believes is valid. The reason driving the rule is to prevent dangerous confrontations between an arrestee and the arresting officer. We promote the public policy that an arrestee must not take the law into his own hands, but must take the peaceful route of judicial remedy.
I find no significant difference in principle between Roberts and this case. I would hold that an arrestee cannot lawfully resist an arrest based on a valid warrant being executed by an officer who in good faith believes he is executing it within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. The reason driving this rule is identical to the rule driving Roberts. The public policy we promote is the same.
That the Moorcroft police officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties at all times surrounding the incident is beyond question. Without challenge, the evidence at trial established that the officers identified appellant’s truck being erratically operated within the town’s limits. The officer driving the police car turned on the overhead lights signalling *889the driver of appellant’s truck to stop. This happened within the town’s limits. Appellant’s vehicle travelled about a quarter of a mile further before it stopped, partially blocking the two-lane road. The officers lawfully arrested the driver of appellant’s truck for driving while under the influence. W.S. 31-5-1204(a)(ii) (June 1989 Repl.); and see Coryell v. Town of Pinedale, 745 P.2d 883, 885 (Wyo.1987).
After arresting the driver, the police learned that appellant, a passenger, was the registered owner of the truck. Under W.S. 31-5-1203 (June 1989 Repl.), it is unlawful for a motor vehicle owner, such as appellant, to knowingly permit an intoxicated person to drive his vehicle. In any event, the driver of appellant’s vehicle told the police that he was more sober than his two passengers, appellant and appellant’s brother. At this point it was apparent to the police that they needed to take charge of the situation because of the inebriated condition of the threesome and the fact that the truck was blocking the road. During the efforts of the police officers to reason with appellant, his brother peaceably got out of the truck; however, appellant refused to leave the truck and locked the doors. He frustrated the officers’ attempts to unlock the doors as well. For twenty-five minutes the police and appellant’s brother tried to persuade appellant to get out of the truck; he refused.
Under these facts, I am satisfied the jury was correct in finding that appellant interfered with the officers’ lawful performance of official duties. I would affirm the conviction.