Hubbry Logo
Resisting arrestResisting arrestMain
Open search
Resisting arrest
Community hub
Resisting arrest
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Resisting arrest
Resisting arrest
from Wikipedia

Resisting arrest by a law enforcement officer is considered a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.

Brazil

[edit]

In Brazil, resistance to arrest is defined under the Brazilian Penal Code as "opposition to the execution of a legal act, by means of violence or threat towards a competent official executing it, or someone assisting them." The penalty for this offense in Brazil is Imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. In addition, any damages caused as a result of the violence used during the act are also charged to the offender and may result in further legal consequences.[1]

Canada

[edit]

The Canadian Criminal Code has two provisions covering resisting arrest. Section 129(a) makes it an offense for anyone who "resists or willfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of their duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer".[2] Section 270(1) makes it an offense for anyone who "(a) assaults a public officer or peace officer engaged in the execution of their duty or a person acting in aid of such an officer; (b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of their-self or another person".[3] Section 129 has a maximum jail term of two years, and Section 270 has a maximum term of five years.

Denmark

[edit]

The Danish penal code[4] makes allowance for some forms of eluding and, thus, is very different from the penal code in the United States.

Norway

[edit]

Resisting arrest in Norway can be punished with up to three months imprisonment.[5][citation needed][6]

Taiwan

[edit]

Any arrest not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law may be constitutionally resisted.[7] Conversely, knowingly and willfully resisting a lawful police arrest with threats or violence may indirectly constitute obstructing official duty.[8]

United Kingdom

[edit]

England and Wales

[edit]

Section 38 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 states:[9]

Whosoever . . . shall assault any person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of himself or of any other person for any offence, will be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, . . .

Section 89 of the Police Act 1996 states:[10]

(2) Any person who resists or willfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.

There is a further offence provided by the Vagrancy Act 1824, concerning "violently resisting" a constable:[11]

"...and every person apprehended as an idle and disorderly person, and violently resisting any constable, or other peace officer so apprehending them, and being subsequently convicted of the offence for which they shall have been so apprehended; shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond, within the true intent and meaning of this Act"

United States

[edit]

The courts in the United States regard resisting arrest as a separate charge or crime in addition to other alleged crimes committed by the arrested person. It is possible to be charged, tried and convicted on this charge alone, without any underlying cause for the original decision to arrest or even if the original arrest was clearly illegal.[12][13] Accordingly, it is never advisable to resist even an unlawful arrest as it will likely result in the use of force by the arresting officer, as well as the addition of the charge of resisting.[14] In most states, resisting arrest is a misdemeanor which can result in jail time.

Alabama

[edit]

Resisting arrest is a Class B misdemeanor in Alabama.[15]

Alaska

[edit]

Resisting or interfering with arrest is a Class A misdemeanor in Alaska.[16]

Arizona

[edit]

In Arizona, resisting arrest is a misdemeanor and limited to cases when the defendant clearly knew the arresting officer was acting in an official capacity.[17]

Arkansas

[edit]

A person commits the offense of resisting arrest if they knowingly resist a person known to be a law enforcement officer who is effecting an arrest. "Resists" is defined as using or threatening to use physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person. It is not a defense to prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest if the officer was acting under the color of their official authority. Resisting arrest is classified as a Class A misdemeanor.

A person commits the offense of refusal to submit to arrest if they knowingly refuse to submit to arrest by a person known to be a law enforcement officer who is effecting an arrest. "Refuses" includes both active and passive refusal. It is not a defense to prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest if the officer was acting under the color of their official authority. Refusal to submit to arrest is classified as a Class B misdemeanor.[18]

California

[edit]

Any person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs a public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of their office or employment, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or both, if no other punishment is prescribed.[19]

Colorado

[edit]

A person commits resisting arrest if they knowingly prevent or attempt to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of their official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by: (a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or (b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another. It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him. The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted. Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.[20]

Connecticut

[edit]

Interfering with an Officer:

A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any (peace officer / special policeman / motor vehicle inspector / firefighter) in the performance of such (peace officer's / special policeman's / inspector's / firefighter's) duties.

Resisting Arrest With Force:

The effect of § 53a-23 is to require a person to submit to an arrest, even if he or she believes, and ultimately it is determined, that the arrest is illegal. This provision must be charged in conjunction with the crimes of Interfering with an Officer (§ 53a-167a) or Assault on Public Safety or Emergency Medical Personnel (§ 53a-167c). See Interfering with an Officer, Instruction 4.3-1, and Assault of Public Safety or Emergency Medical Personnel, Instruction 4.3-3.[21]

Delaware

[edit]

A person is guilty of resisting arrest with force or violence when: (1) The person intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from effecting an arrest or detention of the person or another person by use of force or violence towards said police officer, or (2) Intentionally flees from a police officer who is effecting an arrest against them by use of force or violence towards said police officer, or (3) Injures or struggles with said police officer causing injury to the police officer. Resisting arrest with force or violence is a class G felony. (b) A person is guilty of resisting arrest when the person intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from effecting an arrest or detention of the person or another person or intentionally flees from a peace officer who is effecting an arrest. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor.[22]

Florida

[edit]

Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.[23]

Georgia

[edit]

Obstructing or hindering law enforcement officers:

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.[24]

Hawaii

[edit]

A person commits the offense of resisting arrest if the person intentionally prevents a law enforcement officer acting under color of the law enforcement officer's official authority from effecting an arrest by: (a) Using or threatening to use physical force against the law enforcement officer or another; or (b) Using any other means creating a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or another. (2) Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993; am L 2001, c 91, §4][25]

Idaho

[edit]

Every person who willfully resists, delays or obstructs any public officer, in the discharge, or attempt to discharge, of any duty of his office or who knowingly gives a false report to any peace officer, when no other punishment is prescribed, is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year.[26]

Illinois

[edit]

A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his or her official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.[27]

Indiana

[edit]

A person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties; (2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or (3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop; commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b)(b) The offense under subsection (a) is a: (1) Class D felony if: (A) the offense is described in subsection (a)(3) and the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense; or(B) while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person draws or uses a deadly weapon, inflicts bodily injury on or otherwise causes bodily injury to another person, or operates a vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; (2) Class C felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes serious bodily injury to another person; and (3) Class B felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of another person. (c) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer includes an enforcement officer of the alcohol and tobacco commission and a conservation officer of the department of natural resources. (d) If a person uses a vehicle to commit a felony offense under subsection (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), or (b)(3), as part of the criminal penalty imposed for the offense, the court shall impose a minimum executed sentence of at least:[28] (1) thirty (30) days, if no prior unrelated conviction under this section exists; (2) one hundred eighty (180) days, if one (1) prior unrelated conviction; (3) one (1) year, if two (2) plus unrelated convictions. (e) Mandatory minimum may not be suspended, IC 35-50-2-2 and IC 35-50-3-1.

Iowa

[edit]

A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest, either of the person's self, or another which the person knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if the person believes that the arrest is unlawful or the arrest is in fact unlawful.[29]

Kansas

[edit]

Interference with law enforcement: (1) Falsely reporting to a law enforcement officer or state investigative agency:(A) That a particular person has committed a crime, knowing that such information is false and intending that the officer or agency shall act in reliance upon such information; or (B) any information, knowing that such information is false and intending to influence, impede or obstruct such officer's or agency's duty (2) concealing, destroying or materially altering evidence with the intent to prevent or hinder the apprehension or prosecution of any person; or (3) knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by law to serve process in the service or execution or in the attempt to serve or execute any writ, warrant, process or order of a court, or in the discharge of any official duty. (b) (1) Interference with law enforcement as defined in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) is a class A nonperson misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b)(2).[30]

Kentucky

[edit]

A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another by: (a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or (b) Using any other means creating a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the peace officer or another. (2) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeanor.[31]

Louisiana

[edit]

Resisting an officer is the intentional interference with, opposition or resistance to, or obstruction of an individual acting in his official capacity and authorized by law to make a lawful arrest, lawful detention, or seizure of property or to serve any lawful process or court order when the offender knows or has reason to know that the person arresting, detaining, seizing property, or serving process is acting in his official capacity. B. (1) The phrase "obstruction of" as used herein shall, in addition to its common meaning, signification, and connotation mean the following: (a) Flight by one sought to be arrested before the arresting officer can restrain him and after notice is given that he is under arrest. (b) Any violence toward or any resistance or opposition to the arresting officer after the arrested party is actually placed under arrest and before he is incarcerated in jail. (c) Refusal by the arrested or detained party to give his name and make his identity known to the arresting or detaining officer or providing false information regarding the identity of such party to the officer. (d) Congregation with others on a public street and refusal to move on when ordered by the officer. (2) The word "officer" as used herein means any peace officer, as defined in R.S. 40:2402, and includes deputy sheriffs, municipal police officers, probation and parole officers, city marshals and deputies, and wildlife enforcement agents. C. Whoever commits the crime of resisting an officer shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.[32]

Maine

[edit]

Refusing to submit to arrest or detention. A person is guilty of refusing to submit to an arrest or a detention if, with the intent to hinder, delay or prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting the arrest or detention, that person: A. Uses physical force against the law enforcement officer; or B. Creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the law enforcement officer. 2. It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: A. The person knew that the law enforcement officer knew that the arrest or detention was illegal; or B. The person reasonably believed that the person attempting to effect the arrest or detention was not a law enforcement officer. 3. Refusing to submit to an arrest or a detention is a Class D crime.[33]

Maryland

[edit]

"Police officer" defined.- In this section, "police officer" means an individual who is authorized to make an arrest under Title 2 of the Criminal Procedure Article. (b) Prohibited.- A person may not intentionally: (1) resist a lawful arrest; or (2) interfere with an individual who the person has reason to know is a police officer who is making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or detention of another person. (c) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both. (d) Unit of prosecution.- The unit of prosecution for a violation of this section is based on the arrest or detention regardless of the number of police officers involved in the arrest or detention.[34]

Massachusetts

[edit]

Under Section 32B of Chapter 268 of the General Laws, a person commits the crime of resisting arrest if they knowingly prevent or attempt to prevent a police officer, acting under color of official authority, from effecting an arrest of themselves or another person by:

  • Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another person; or
  • Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the police officer or another person.

To prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the prosecution must establish four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • The defendant prevented or attempted to prevent a police officer from making an arrest of themselves or another person.
  • The officer was acting under color of official authority at the time.
  • The defendant resisted by using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another person, or by using some other means which created a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the police officer or another person.
  • The defendant acted knowingly, meaning they knew at the time that they were preventing an arrest by a police officer acting under color of official authority.

A police officer acts "under color of official authority" when, in the regular course of their assigned duties, they make a judgment in good faith, based on the surrounding facts and circumstances, that they should make an arrest.[35]

Michigan

[edit]

Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions:

Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. (2) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both. (3) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a serious impairment of a body function of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (4) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing the death of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. (5) This section does not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law that is committed by that individual while violating this section. (6) A term of imprisonment imposed for a violation of this section may run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for another violation arising from the same transaction. (7) As used in this section: (a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command. (b) "Person" means any of the following: (i) A police officer of this state or of a political subdivision of this state including, but not limited to, a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police. (ii) A police officer of a junior college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that junior college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that junior college, college, or university. (iii) A conservation officer of the department of natural resources or the department of environmental quality. (iv) A conservation officer of the United States department of the interior. (v) A sheriff or deputy sheriff. (vi) A constable. (vii) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States, including, but not limited to, an agent of the secret service or department of justice. (viii) A firefighter. (ix) Any emergency medical service personnel described in section 20950 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20950. (x) An individual engaged in a search and rescue operation as that term is defined in section 50c.(c) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c.[36]

Minnesota

[edit]

Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting:

obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense; (2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties; (3) interferes with or obstructs a firefighter while the firefighter is engaged in the performance of official duties; (4) interferes with or obstructs a member of an ambulance service personnel crew, as defined in section144E.001, subdivision 3a, who is providing, or attempting to provide, emergency care; or (5) by force or threat of force endeavors to obstruct any employee of the Department of Revenue while the employee is lawfully engaged in the performance of official duties for the purpose of deterring or interfering with the performance of those duties.[37]

Mississippi

[edit]

It shall be unlawful for any person to obstruct or resist by force, or violence, or threats, or in any other manner, his lawful arrest or the lawful arrest of another person by any state, local or federal law enforcement officer, and any person or persons so doing shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six (6) months, or both.[38]

Missouri

[edit]

A person commits the offense of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if he or she knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, and for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, he or she: (1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or (2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference. 2. This section applies to: (1) Arrests, stops, or detentions, with or without warrants; (2) Arrests, stops, or detentions, for any offense, infraction, or ordinance violation; and (3) Arrests for warrants issued by a court or a probation and parole officer. 3. A person is presumed to be fleeing a vehicle stop if he or she continues to operate a motor vehicle after he or she has seen or should have seen clearly visible emergency lights or has heard or should have heard an audible signal emanating from the law enforcement vehicle pursuing him or her. 4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest. 5. The offense of resisting or interfering with an arrest is a class E felony for an arrest for a: (1) Felony; (2) Warrant issued for failure to appear on a felony case; or (3) Warrant issued for a probation violation on a felony case. The offense of resisting an arrest, detention or stop in violation of subdivision (1) or (2) of subsection 1 of this section is a class A misdemeanor, unless the person fleeing creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to any person, in which case it is a class E felony.[39]

Montana

[edit]

Obstructing a Peace Officer or Public Servant:

A person commits the offense of obstructing a peace officer or public servant if the person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the criminal law, the preservation of the peace, or the performance of a governmental function, including service of process. (2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority. (3) A person convicted of the offense of obstructing a peace officer or other public servant, including a person serving process, shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.[40]

Nebraska

[edit]

A person commits the offense of resisting arrest if, while intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, he or she: (a) Uses or threatens to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or (b) Uses any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the peace officer or another; or (c) Employs means requiring substantial force to overcome resistance to effecting the arrest. (2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if the peace officer involved was out of uniform and did not identify himself or herself as a peace officer by showing his or her credentials to the person whose arrest is attempted. (3) Resisting arrest is (a) a Class I misdemeanor for the first such offense and (b) a Class IIIA felony for any second or subsequent such offense. (4) Resisting arrest through the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon is a Class IIIA felony.[41]

Nevada

[edit]

Resisting public officer. 

A person who, in any case or under any circumstances not otherwise specially provided for, willfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his or her office shall be punished: 1. Where a firearm is used in the course of such resistance, obstruction or delay, or the person intentionally removes, takes or attempts to remove or take a firearm from the person of, or the immediate presence of, the public officer in the course of such resistance, obstruction or delay, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.2. Where a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm, is used in the course of such resistance, obstruction or delay, or the person intentionally removes, takes or attempts to remove or take a weapon, other than a firearm, from the person of, or the immediate presence of, the public officer in the course of such resistance, obstruction or delay, for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.3. Where no dangerous weapon is used in the course of such resistance, obstruction or delay, for a misdemeanor.[42]

New Hampshire

[edit]

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the act of resisting arrest or detention causes serious bodily injury, as defined in RSA 625:11, VI, to another person. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.[43]

New Jersey

[edit]

Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if he purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he, by flight, purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest. (3) An offense under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection a. is a crime of the third degree if the person: (a) Uses or threatens to use physical force or violence against the law enforcement officer or another; or (b) Uses any other means to create a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the public servant or another. It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance.[44]

New Mexico

[edit]

knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process; B. intentionally fleeing, attempting to evade or evading an officer of this state when the person committing the act of fleeing, attempting to evade or evasion has knowledge that the officer is attempting to apprehend or arrest him; C. willfully refusing to bring a vehicle to a stop when given a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light, flashing light, siren or other signal, by a uniformed officer in an appropriately marked police vehicle; D. resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties. Whoever commits resisting, evading or obstructing an officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.[45]

New York

[edit]

A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor.[46]

North Carolina

[edit]

Resisting officers. If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.[47]

North Dakota

[edit]

A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, with intent to prevent a public servant from effecting an arrest of himself or another for a misdemeanor or infraction, or from discharging any other official duty, he creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or to anyone except himself, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome resistance to effecting the arrest or the discharge of the duty. A person is guilty of a class C felony if, with intent to prevent a public servant from effecting an arrest of himself or another for a class A, B, or C felony, he creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or to anyone except himself, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome resistance to effecting such an arrest. 2. It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the public servant was not acting lawfully, but it is no defense that the defendant mistakenly believed that the public servant was not acting lawfully. A public servant executing a warrant or other process in good faith and under color of law shall be deemed to be acting lawfully.[48]

Ohio

[edit]

No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another. (B) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person and, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, cause physical harm to a law enforcement officer. (C) No person, recklessly or by force, shall resist or interfere with a lawful arrest of the person or another person if either of the following applies: (1) The offender, during the course of or as a result of the resistance or interference, recklessly causes physical harm to a law enforcement officer by means of a deadly weapon; (2) The offender, during the course of the resistance or interference, brandishes a deadly weapon. (D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of resisting arrest. A violation of division (A) of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. A violation of division (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. A violation of division (C) of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.(E) As used in this section, "deadly weapon" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.[49]

Oklahoma

[edit]

No person may be convicted of resisting a/an peace/executive officer unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are: First, knowingly. Second, by the use of force/violence. Third, resisting. Fourth, a/an peace/executive officer. Fifth, in the performance of his/her official duties.[50]

Oregon

[edit]

A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if the person intentionally resists a person known by the person to be a peace officer or parole and probation officer in making an arrest.(2)As used in this section: (a) Arrest has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.005(Definitions for ORS 133.005 to 133.400 and 133.410 to 133.450) and includes, but is not limited to, the booking process. (b) Parole and probation officer has the meaning given that term in ORS 181.610 (Definitions for ORS 181.610 to 181.712). (c) Resists means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer. Passive resistance does not constitute behavior intended to prevent being taken into custody. (3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer or parole and probation officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest or book the person, provided the officer was acting under color of official authority. (4) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §206; 1989 c.877 §1; 1997 c.749 §3;[51]

Pennsylvania

[edit]

A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance.[52]

Rhode Island

[edit]

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to use force or any weapon in resisting a legal or an illegal arrest by a peace officer, if the person has reasonable ground to believe that he or she is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer. (b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both fine and imprisonment.[53]

South Carolina

[edit]

It is unlawful for a person knowingly and willfully to interfere or resist a law enforcement officer or other authorized person in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute a legal, criminal, or civil writ or process or to resist an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer or other authorized person, whether under process or not. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, for a: (1) first offense, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; (2) second offense, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and (3) third or subsequent offense, must be fined not less than three thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not less than two years, or both.[54]

South Dakota

[edit]

Any person who intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer, acting under color of authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by: (1) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the law enforcement officer or any other person; or (2) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the law enforcement officer or any other person;is guilty of resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is a Class 1 misdemeanor.[55]

Tennessee

[edit]

It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another. (b) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful. (c) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process. (d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.[56]

Texas

[edit]

Resisting arrest in Texas is outlined under Texas Penal Code § 38.03. The statute defines this offense as intentionally preventing or obstructing a peace officer from making an arrest, search, or transporting an individual by using force against the officer. Penalties for resisting arrest can vary significantly. A Class A misdemeanor, the less severe charge, may result in up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $4,000. In contrast, if a deadly weapon is used during the act of resistance, the charge escalates to a third-degree felony, which carries a potential prison sentence of 2 to 10 years and a fine of up to $10,000. Defenses commonly raised against charges of resisting arrest include arguing the lack of intent, claiming self-defense, or asserting the unlawfulness of the arrest.[57]

[edit]

According to the Texas Penal Code:

  • Subsection (a): An individual commits an offense if they intentionally prevent or obstruct a known peace officer, or a person acting at the officer's direction, from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation by using force.
  • Subsection (b): The legality of the arrest or search is not a defense against this charge.
  • Subsection (c): The offense is generally classified as a Class A misdemeanor unless otherwise specified.
  • Subsection (d): If a deadly weapon is used in resisting arrest or search, the offense is classified as a third-degree felony.[58]

Distinction from Evading Arrest

[edit]

The crime of evading arrest or detention differs from resisting arrest. Under Texas law, evading arrest occurs when an individual intentionally flees from someone they know to be a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting to lawfully arrest or detain them. While evading arrest is typically a misdemeanor, certain aggravating factors can elevate it to a felony. These factors include having prior convictions for evading arrest, using a vehicle to flee, or causing serious bodily injury to another as a direct result of the attempt to evade arrest.[59]

The crime of "evading arrest or detention" is distinct from the crime of "resisting arrest, search, or transportation." A person commits the offense of evading arrest if "he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him." Evading arrest is a misdemeanor when committed without aggravating factors, but is a felony if the actor has a previous conviction for it, the actor uses a vehicle while in flight, or "another suffers serious bodily injury as a direct result of an attempt by the officer or investigator from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight."

Utah

[edit]

Interference with arresting officer.

A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by: (1) use of force or any weapon; (2) the arrested person's refusal to perform any act required by lawful order: (a) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and (b) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or (3) the arrested person's or another person's refusal to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.[60]

Vermont

[edit]

A person who intentionally attempts to prevent a lawful arrest on himself or herself, which is being effected or attempted by a law enforcement officer, when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a law enforcement officer, shall: (1) for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $500.00, or both; (2) for the second offense and subsequent offenses, be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both. (b) A defendant's mistaken belief in the unlawfulness of the arrest shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section. (c) A person may not be convicted of both an escape from lawful custody, as defined in subdivision 1501(a)(2) of this title, and a violation of this section.[61]

Virginia

[edit]

Any person who intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a law-enforcement officer from lawfully arresting him, with or without a warrant, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this section, intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a lawful arrest means fleeing from a law-enforcement officer when (i) the officer applies physical force to the person, or (ii) the officer communicates to the person that he is under arrest and (a) the officer has the legal authority and the immediate physical ability to place the person under arrest, and (b) a reasonable person who receives such communication knows or should know that he is not free to leave.[62]

Washington

[edit]

A person is guilty of resisting arrest if he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from lawfully arresting him or her. (2) Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor.[63]

West Virginia

[edit]

A person who by threats, menaces, acts or otherwise forcibly or illegally hinders or obstructs or attempts to hinder or obstruct a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500 or confined in jail not more than one year, or both fined and confined. (b) A person who intentionally disarms or attempts to disarm a law-enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer or parole officer, acting in his or her official capacity, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years. (c) A person who, with intent to impede or obstruct a law-enforcement officer in the conduct of an investigation of a felony offense, knowingly and willfully makes a materially false statement is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $25 nor more than $200, or confined in jail for five days, or both fined and confined. The provisions of this section do not apply to statements made by a spouse, parent, stepparent, grandparent, sibling, half sibling, child, stepchild or grandchild, whether related by blood or marriage, of the person under investigation. Statements made by the person under investigation may not be used as the basis for prosecution under this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, "law-enforcement officer" does not include a watchman, a member of the West Virginia State Police or college security personnel who is not a certified law-enforcement officer. (d) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee by any means other than the use of a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity who is attempting to make a lawful arrest of the person, and who knows or reasonably believes that the officer is attempting to arrest him or her, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500 or confined in jail not more than one year, or both fined and confined. (e) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee in a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity after the officer has given a clear visual or audible signal directing the person to stop is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and shall be confined in l jail not more than one year. (f) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee in a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity after the officer has given a clear visual or audible signal directing the person to stop, and who operates the vehicle in a manner showing a reckless indifference to the safety of others, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000 and shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years. (g) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee in a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity after the officer has given a clear visual or audible signal directing the person to stop, and who causes damage to the real or personal property of a person during or resulting from his or her flight, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $3,000 and shall be confined in jail for not less than six months nor more than one year. (h) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee in a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity after the officer has given a clear visual or audible signal directing the person to stop, and who causes bodily injury to a person during or resulting from his or her flight, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than three nor more than ten years. (i) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee in a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity after the officer has given a clear visual or audible signal directing the person to stop, and who causes death to a person during or resulting from his or her flight, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than fifteen years. A person imprisoned pursuant to this subsection is not eligible for parole prior to having served a minimum of three years of his or her sentence or the minimum period required by section thirteen, article twelve, chapter sixty-two of this code, whichever is greater. (j) A person who intentionally flees or attempts to flee in a vehicle from a law-enforcement officer, probation officer or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity after the officer has given a clear visual or audible signal directing the person to stop, and who is under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances or drugs, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than three nor more than ten years. (k) For purposes of this section, the term "vehicle" includes any motor vehicle, motorcycle, motorboat, all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile as those terms are defined in section one, article one, chapter seventeen-a of this code, whether or not it is being operated on a public highway at the time and whether or not it is licensed by the state. (l) For purposes of this section, the terms "flee", "fleeing" and "flight" do not include a person's reasonable attempt to travel to a safe place, allowing the pursuing law-enforcement officer to maintain appropriate surveillance, for the purpose of complying with the officer's direction to stop.(m) The revisions to subsections (e), (f), (g) and (h) of this section enacted during the regular session of the 2010 regular legislative session shall be known as the Jerry Alan Jones Act.[64]

Wisconsin

[edit]

Failure to comply with officer's attempt to take person into custody:

In this section, "officer" has the meaning given in s. 946.41 (2) (b).(2) Whoever intentionally does all of the following is guilty of a Class I felony: (a) Refuses to comply with an officer's lawful attempt to take him or her into custody. (b) Retreats or remains in a building or place and, through action or threat, attempts to prevent the officer from taking him or her into custody. (c) While acting under pars. (a) and (b), remains or becomes armed with a dangerous weapon or threatens to use a dangerous weapon regardless of whether he or she has a dangerous weapon. This section delineates one crime: a suspect's armed, physical refusal to be taken into custody. It can be committed by action or threat, which are alternative ways of threatening an officer to avoid being taken into custody. A jury instruction requiring unanimity on which occurred is not required.[65]

Wyoming

[edit]

No person shall willfully resist the chief of police or any other member of the police department, or other member of any law enforcement department, in the discharge of his duties, if known to be or identified as a police officer. B. No person shall, in any manner, willfully assist any person in the custody of the chief of police or other police officer, or any other law enforcement officer, to escape, or rescue or attempt to rescue any other person so in custody. C. No person shall willfully, in any way, interfere, hinder or prevent the chief of police or any other member of the police department, or any other law enforcement officer, from discharging his lawful duties. D. Any person convicted of violating any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided by Chapter 1.28 of this code. [citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Resisting arrest is a criminal offense generally defined as the intentional act of obstructing, delaying, or using physical force to prevent a from effecting a lawful or detention. The elements typically include knowledge of the officer's authority, intent to interfere, and conduct that physically hinders the , though some jurisdictions distinguish between non-violent obstruction (often a ) and violent resistance (potentially a ). Historically rooted in English , the concept permitted individuals to use reasonable force against unlawful s as a safeguard against arbitrary state power, a principle affirmed in early U.S. cases like Bad Elk v. United States (1900), which recognized the even peacefully unlawful seizures. However, by the mid-20th century, most U.S. jurisdictions abolished this right through statutes and , mandating submission to —lawful or not—and subsequent legal challenge, on grounds that resistance escalates and undermines public order. In contemporary practice, resisting arrest charges arise in a small fraction of police encounters, comprising about 0.08% of stops in recent data, but they frequently correlate with escalated by officers, as empirical studies show suspects who resist face higher likelihoods of injury or restraint deployment. Defenses often hinge on claims of excessive police force justifying , lack of for the underlying arrest, or absence of intent, though success rates remain low absent clear evidence like video documentation. Controversies persist over prosecutorial add-ons to bolster cases, with data indicating racial disparities in charging rates for paired offenses like drug possession, underscoring debates on whether the charge deters compliance or enables overreach.

Definition and Elements

Core Components of the Offense

The offense of resisting generally requires proof of a lawful or attempted by a peace officer, the 's awareness of that , and an intentional act to prevent or obstruct it. In jurisdictions following statutes modeled on common formulations, such as New York Penal Law § 205.30, the consists of intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the officer from effecting an authorized of the or another person. This physical or obstructive conduct may include pulling away, pushing, fleeing, or verbal interference that hinders the officer's duties, though the precise scope varies; for instance, § 148(a)(1) encompasses willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer, potentially without requiring violence. Mens rea typically demands purposeful or knowing to resist, distinguishing it from accidental or unknowing interference; the defendant must act with awareness that a is attempting an . Knowledge of the officer's status and the arrest's occurrence is essential, often inferred from circumstances like verbal commands or attempts, as mere passive non-compliance generally does not suffice absent to thwart. Courts require the prosecution to establish these elements beyond a , with the arrest's fulness serving as a foundational prerequisite in most U.S. states to avoid conflating resistance with against invalid detention. The degree of resistance influences , with minor obstruction often a and violent or dangerous acts escalating to felonies; for example, employing force that endangers the may elevate charges under broader obstructing statutes. Empirical data from state penal codes indicate that non-violent verbal resistance alone rarely meets the threshold, emphasizing physical or evasive actions as core to the prohibited conduct. Jurisdictional variations persist, but the unifying across statutes is the deliberate interference with lawful custodial authority to maintain public order during . Resisting is typically distinguished from obstruction of governmental operations or obstructing a peace officer by its narrower focus on actively preventing or attempting to prevent a specific through the use or of physical , whereas obstruction encompasses a broader array of actions that intentionally hinder an officer's lawful duties in general, which may include non-physical or verbal interference without direct involvement in an arrest attempt. In , for instance, obstructing a peace officer under CRS § 18-8-104 requires only knowing interference with official functions, punishable as a class 2 with up to 120 days in jail and $750 fine, but lacks the element central to resisting under CRS § 18-8-103. Evading or eluding , by contrast, centers on flight or escape from apprehension, such as fleeing on foot after a command to halt or recklessly operating a to avoid a police signal, rather than physical confrontation during the process itself. In jurisdictions like , vehicular eluding under CRS § 18-9-116.5 is a carrying 1-12 years in prison, emphasizing the evasion aspect over resistance, while simpler eluding via traffic violation (CRS § 42-4-1413) remains a tied to disregarding a stop signal without the force required for resisting . Assault or battery on a law enforcement officer differs from resisting arrest in requiring actual or attempted harmful physical contact or injury to the officer, elevating the offense beyond mere preventive force against the arrest. While resisting arrest may involve struggling or pulling away without causing harm—often a misdemeanor—inflicting bodily injury or using a deadly weapon during resistance can trigger separate or aggravated charges, as seen in Ohio Revised Code § 2921.33(C), where such acts constitute a fourth-degree felony. Courts have upheld dual convictions for both resisting arrest and assault when distinct elements are met, such as initial prevention followed by intentional battery. Failure to comply with police orders, meanwhile, often involves passive refusal or non-violent non-cooperation short of force, lacking the intentional physical obstruction defining resistance in statutes like Texas Penal Code § 38.03. At the federal level, 18 U.S.C. § 111 prohibits assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers, including those specified under § 1114, while performing official duties; this encompasses broader obstruction beyond arrests, distinguishing it from state resisting arrest laws focused on arrest-specific resistance.

Historical Development

Common Law Origins

The offense of originated in English as a prohibition against forcible opposition to a peace officer's lawful execution of duty, treated as a akin to or obstruction of justice to safeguard public order and the integrity of . This principle emerged from medieval practices where constables and hue-and-cry pursuits required citizen cooperation, with non-compliance risking escalation to ; by the , treatises like Sir Matthew Hale's Pleas of the Crown (1678) underscored the duty to yield to valid arrests, viewing resistance as undermining sovereign authority. A pivotal distinction arose in Queen v. Tooley (1710), where the King's Bench held that resistance to an unlawful arrest—lacking a warrant or of —constituted provocation sufficient to reduce a killing of officers from to , framing such resistance as justifiable against illegal restraint. Conversely, this ruling implied full criminal liability for resisting lawful arrests, as submission preserved recourse through or rather than immediate confrontation, aligning with causal priorities of minimizing violence in favor of structured remedies. The case, involving defendants who slew night watchmen attempting an unauthorized apprehension, solidified that only arrests devoid of legal basis permitted proportional force, while lawful ones demanded compliance to avoid offenses like . Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) further codified these origins, describing forcible resistance to lawful process as a direct affront to constitutional order, punishable under for obstructing officers and potentially escalating to more severe charges if force endangered life. Blackstone rooted this in broader protections of personal liberty, tracing ultimate foundations to (1215), clause 39, which barred arbitrary seizure except by law of the land, thereby privileging lawful authority while criminalizing interference that could provoke broader disorder. These doctrines emphasized empirical deterrence of anarchy over individual autonomy in the moment, influencing subsequent Anglo-American by prioritizing verifiable legality over subjective perceptions during apprehension.

Evolution and Reforms in the 20th-21st Centuries

In the early , U.S. courts upheld the principle allowing individuals to resist unlawful arrests with reasonable force, as articulated in Bad Elk v. United States (1900), where the ruled that a person could employ necessary force to repel an illegal arrest attempt, potentially reducing a charge to if an officer was killed in the process. This decision reinforced the view that unlawful restraint justified self-defense-like resistance, absent excessive force by authorities. However, even at this stage, the doctrine applied narrowly, requiring the arrest to lack or warrant, and prohibited against non-deadly arrests. By the mid-20th century, judicial and legislative trends shifted toward abrogating this right, prioritizing post-arrest remedies over immediate resistance to avert escalation and promote professional policing. Courts reasoned that modern legal mechanisms—such as , civil lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and administrative reviews—provided sufficient redress without endangering public safety, a view gaining traction amid police professionalization efforts from onward. Many states enacted statutes criminalizing resistance to any arrest by a known peace officer, irrespective of lawfulness, unless accompanied by excessive force; for instance, by the 1960s, jurisdictions like and New York codified resisting arrest as a or , effectively nullifying defenses in routine encounters. This evolution reflected a policy consensus that resistance, even to unlawful arrests, often precipitated violence, with empirical observations of arrest-related injuries supporting statutory prohibitions. In the , reforms have largely reinforced these restrictions rather than reviving resistance rights, amid broader debates following high-profile incidents. While federal initiatives like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (incorporating aspects of oversight) indirectly influenced protocols, state laws on resisting remained stringent, with some jurisdictions enhancing penalties for non-compliance. For example, proposals in states like New York have sought to elevate repeat offenses to felonies, emphasizing deterrence over expanded . A minority of states retain limited vestiges, permitting resistance only against egregious unlawful force, but the dominant framework—adopted in over 40 jurisdictions—conditions any defense on immediate threats rather than validity, underscoring a causal prioritization of to minimize injuries during apprehensions.

Requirement for a Lawful Arrest

In jurisdictions, a lawful requires the arresting authority—typically a peace officer or, in limited cases, a —to act within the bounds of established legal powers, supported by either a valid warrant or reasonable grounds equivalent to that an offense has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the . exists when facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer, based on reasonably trustworthy information, would lead a prudent person to believe the is involved in criminal activity, rather than mere suspicion or hunch. For warrantless arrests, which form the basis for many resisting arrest encounters, permitted them for felonies regardless of the officer's presence at the offense or for misdemeanors committed in the officer's view, provided is present to justify the seizure. This principle persists in modern U.S. law under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures and demands that arrests without warrants be grounded in to avoid violating constitutional protections against arbitrary detention. An , when required, must be issued by a neutral magistrate upon a showing of via , particularly describing the person and offense to prevent general warrants historically abused in colonial America. Failure to meet these requirements renders the arrest unlawful, potentially invalidating subsequent resisting arrest charges, as the offense of resistance typically applies only to opposition against a valid detention. Courts assess objectively, considering the totality of circumstances at the time of , excluding post- evidence that cannot retroactively justify the seizure. In practice, for minor offenses, some jurisdictions limit warrantless arrests to those observed in the officer's presence to balance public safety with individual liberty.

Knowledge, Intent, and Types of Resistance

Knowledge of an arrest attempt is a foundational element of the resisting arrest offense in most U.S. jurisdictions, requiring the defendant to be aware that a is attempting to detain or take them into custody. Without this awareness, actions that might otherwise appear obstructive do not qualify, as the cannot attach to an unrecognized . For example, § 148(a)(1) specifies that the resistance must be willful against "any public officer" whom the defendant "knows or reasonably should know" is performing official duties, as affirmed in cases emphasizing actual of the officer's identity and purpose. Similarly, federal interpretations under 18 U.S.C. § 111, which covers resisting federal officers, hinge on the defendant's recognition of the officer's lawful during the encounter. This element distinguishes resisting arrest from unrelated non-compliance, such as ignorance of an officer's plainclothes status without clear indicators of . The requirement, often termed , mandates purposeful or knowing conduct aimed at preventing the , rather than mere or accident. Jurisdictions typically classify resisting as a specific crime, where the must act deliberately to obstruct the officer's efforts. In New York, Penal Law § 205.30 explicitly requires that a person "intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent" an authorized by a or peace officer. courts have similarly held resisting with violence under § 843.01 to demand specific , rejecting defenses like voluntary intoxication that negate purposeful action, as in Frey v. State (1998). This intentionality excludes inadvertent interference, ensuring the offense targets deliberate opposition rather than reflexive or unknowing responses. Types of resistance are categorized primarily by the level of force or opposition employed, influencing the charge's severity and applicable penalties. Passive resistance involves non-violent non-compliance, such as verbal refusal, going limp, or failing to follow commands without physical evasion, which suffices for charges like "resisting without " in states like (§ 843.02) but may not meet thresholds requiring "force" in others. Active resistance entails physical actions to thwart control, including pushing, pulling away, or fleeing while evading grasp, often escalating to status if it endangers the . Aggravated resistance incorporates , such as striking, using weapons, or causing injury, transforming the offense into a higher-degree under statutes like Oklahoma's on "force or " against . These distinctions derive from statutory language and judicial interpretations prioritizing physical obstruction over mere words, with empirical data from police encounter analyses showing active forms correlating with higher use-of-force incidents.

Defenses and Justifications

Self-Defense Against Excessive Force

In jurisdictions, particularly the , individuals possess a recognized right to use reasonable and proportionate force in against excessive force employed by law enforcement officers during an otherwise lawful . This defense operates independently of any general prohibition on resisting arrest, focusing instead on countering unlawful violence that endangers personal safety. Excessive force, defined as actions beyond what is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures, thereby justifying a defensive response until the threat abates. The objective reasonableness standard for evaluating excessive force, articulated by the U.S. in Graham v. Connor (1989), considers factors such as the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and resistance or evasion attempts, without regard to the officer's underlying intent. For claims, the arrestee must present evidence—such as witness testimony, video footage, or injuries inconsistent with minimal restraint—that the officer's actions exceeded necessity, like continued strikes after compliance or use of chokeholds absent imminent danger. Courts have upheld self-defense instructions to juries in such scenarios, provided substantial evidence exists, as denying the instruction where excessive force is disputed may constitute reversible error. Statutory frameworks reinforce this principle; for instance, § 776.012 permits non-deadly force against another person, including officers, when reasonably believed necessary to defend against unlawful force threatening imminent harm. However, the defensive force must remain proportional—escalating to only if facing lethal threat—and ceases upon the officer's cessation of excessive actions. Empirical analyses of case outcomes indicate that successful assertions against officers are rare, often due to judicial deference to accounts and the high evidentiary burden, with convictions for resistance upheld absent clear proof of excess.

Limited Right to Resist Unlawful Arrests

Under , individuals held a recognized an unlawful using reasonable force necessary to prevent it, a principle affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bad Elk v. United States (1900), where the Court stated that if an officer lacks authority to , the arrestee may resist with no more force than absolutely necessary to repel the unlawful interference. This doctrine stemmed from the view that an unlawful constituted a or , justifying to avoid wrongful deprivation of . In modern U.S. , however, this right has been largely abrogated or severely limited by statutes and court decisions favoring compliance followed by post-arrest legal remedies, such as or civil suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to minimize immediate violence during encounters with presumed lawful authority. A majority of states have enacted laws prohibiting resistance to any —lawful or unlawful—absent excessive by officers that threatens serious or death, reflecting a policy prioritization of officer safety and over on-scene of legality. For instance, in states like , an unlawful provides no defense to resisting charges, as courts emphasize that arrestees must submit and challenge the validity through judicial channels rather than physical confrontation. The limitation persists because determining an arrest's in the moment is often infeasible, and resistance escalates risks of or escalation, with empirical from policing studies indicating higher rates of use-of-force incidents in non-compliant arrests. Exceptions apply narrowly where resistance equates to against imminent, excessive harm beyond mere restraint, but even then, force must be proportionate and non-deadly unless life is endangered. This framework underscores that while unlawful arrests remain actionable civilly, physical resistance is not a protected remedy in most jurisdictions to preserve public order and enable verifiable resolution of disputes.

Empirical Outcomes

Prevalence and Predictors of Resistance

Empirical studies indicate that suspect resistance occurs in approximately 12% of police-citizen encounters, encompassing verbal defiance such as arguing or cursing as well as physical non-compliance. In contexts limited to arrests, prevalence is lower but varies by jurisdiction; for instance, analysis of over 10,000 arrests in the Police Department from 1999 to 2003 identified roughly 400 cases involving resistance, equating to about 4%. These figures highlight that while resistance is not ubiquitous, it frequently precedes escalations, with drug-related arrests showing elevated rates—53.6% of resistance cases in the sample tied to such offenses. Key predictors of resistance include suspect attributes like demeanor and impairment. Logistic regression analyses of 1,220 arrests in , in 1994 found suspect demeanor to be the strongest factor, with disrespectful or aggressive attitudes correlating highly with non-compliance, alongside chemical impairment. Racial and ethnic disparities also emerge consistently: suspects resist at rates up to four times higher than whites in aggregated data, and arrest rates for resisting are 3.8 times higher for s per in examined jurisdictions. In the Ontario study, 67.4% of arrestees resisted compared to 37.3% of whites and 48% of Hispanics. Situational and environmental factors further influence resistance likelihood. The presence of witnesses significantly predicts non-compliance in the Phoenix data, potentially due to perceived social reinforcement or fear of reputational loss. Neighborhood characteristics, such as high-crime areas with socioeconomic disadvantage, correlate with higher resistance, as seen in where certain beats exhibited elevated rates tied to incident type and charges. Officer variables like and show mixed effects but are generally secondary to suspect . Officer race, however, does not predict resistance across studies.

Risks and Consequences of Resistance vs. Compliance

Empirical analyses of police use-of-force encounters demonstrate that suspect resistance substantially heightens the probability of injury to the suspect compared to passive or verbal non-compliance. In a study of over 26,000 use-of-force incidents across six large U.S. police departments from 2003 to 2005, suspects displaying defensive resistance or higher (e.g., blocking, striking, or assaulting officers) faced 27% greater odds of injury relative to those offering only passive resistance, with an odds ratio of 1.27 (95% CI: 1.16-1.40). This elevation stems from the dynamic escalation where physical resistance prompts officers to apply greater force levels to achieve compliance, often involving hands-on control or less-lethal tools like tasers or pepper spray, which carry inherent risks of falls, impacts, or physiological effects. Resistance also amplifies risks to officers, with the same dataset showing a 72% increase in officer injury odds (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.51-1.95) when facing defensive or aggressive suspect behavior, underscoring bidirectional physical hazards. A 2023 analysis of non-fatal officer injuries in use-of-force events further confirmed that defensive physical resistance by subjects correlates with higher officer injury rates, accounting for approximately 11% of involved officers sustaining harm overall. In contrast, compliant or passively resistant subjects experience markedly lower force thresholds, reducing injury likelihood through de-escalation opportunities; less-lethal interventions like conducted energy devices further mitigate suspect injuries by 59% (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.37-0.46) when deployed against resisters, compared to physical tactics alone. Beyond immediate physical risks, resistance frequently escalates encounters toward severe outcomes, including in high-threat scenarios. While comprehensive national data on resistance in fatal shootings remains limited due to voluntary reporting, localized studies indicate that aggressive non-compliance—such as assaulting officers or fleeing while armed—features in the majority of lethal force justifications, with compliance correlating to fewer such escalations. Legally, resisting arrest incurs additional charges in most U.S. jurisdictions, often classified as misdemeanors or felonies depending on the degree (e.g., passive evasion vs. ), leading to enhanced penalties; for instance, in states like § 148(a) convictions for resisting can add up to one year imprisonment, compounding original offenses. Compliance, though not risk-free—particularly if officers employ unwarranted —empirically yields safer immediate resolutions, preserving avenues for post-arrest remedies like civil suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful detention. Data from inmate surveys of past encounters reveal that aggressive resistance multiplies the odds of receiving any police force by nearly tenfold, whereas verbal compliance aligns with minimal or no force application. This pattern holds across demographics, with resistance serving as the strongest predictor of force continuum advancement, independent of suspect characteristics like race or status in controlled models. Overall, prioritizes compliance for minimizing acute harms, as resistance causally drives the interpersonal dynamics precipitating injuries and fatalities.

Jurisdictional Variations

United States

In the , resisting arrest is prohibited under both federal and state laws, with federal statutes applying to encounters involving federal officers and state laws governing most arrests by local police. The federal framework imposes for resistance during lawful duties, while state approaches emphasize compliance to minimize violence, even if the underlying proves unlawful upon later review. Courts generally require individuals to submit to and pursue remedies such as , suppression of evidence, or civil lawsuits rather than self-help through force. This policy shift from historical common law norms reflects concerns over escalation risks, as physical resistance often leads to injuries or use of force by officers. The U.S. Supreme Court in Bad Elk v. United States (1900) upheld a right to reasonable force against an unlawful arrest lacking authority, but subsequent state legislatures and courts largely rejected this in favor of statutory bans on resistance, prioritizing orderly process over immediate confrontation.

Federal Framework

Under , resistance to primarily implicates 18 U.S.C. § 111, which criminalizes forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers or employees designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114—such as FBI agents, DEA officers, federal marshals, or postal inspectors—while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties, including arrests but extending to other functions like investigations. This statute requires a "forcible" act for conviction under the resistance or interference prongs, meaning physical conduct that opposes or obstructs the officer, as mere verbal opposition or passive noncompliance does not suffice. Penalties under § 111 vary by severity: simple forcible resistance without injury or weapon is a Class A punishable by up to one year in and fines; use of a or infliction of bodily injury elevates it to a with up to 8–20 years . Federal applies during on federal property, involving federal crimes, or by federal agents enforcing federal law. No federal right exists to resist even an unlawful ; doctrines like apply only against excessive officer force threatening life or serious harm, and violations are prosecuted independently of the 's validity. Federal courts interpret § 111 to protect safety during encounters on , in federal enclaves, or involving federal crimes, distinguishing it from state resisting arrest statutes by its broader application to interference beyond arrests. Intent to resist is not explicitly required, but the forcible nature implies purposeful opposition; defenses may include self-defense against objectively unreasonable force under the Fourth Amendment, as articulated in (1989). Federal precedent has shifted toward prohibiting any forcible resistance to federal arrests—lawful or not—with remedies pursued post-arrest via , civil rights litigation, or suppression of evidence. Department of guidelines emphasize that federal officers must use only objectively reasonable to effect , but arrestees have no statutory or common-law privilege to resist even erroneous federal , prioritizing and .

State-Level Approaches and Variations

Most states follow the majority rule, criminalizing resistance to arrest as a distinct offense regardless of the arrest's lawfulness, to deter violence and ensure officer safety during uncertain encounters. Under this approach, adopted by over 40 jurisdictions influenced by modern penal codes, individuals must comply and challenge arrests judicially; physical resistance—ranging from pulling away to striking—triggers charges like misdemeanor or felony resisting arrest, with penalties including jail time (e.g., up to 1 year for misdemeanors) and fines, escalating with injury to officers. A minority of states retain limited common law exceptions, permitting reasonable, non-deadly force to resist an unlawful only if it lacks legal basis (e.g., no warrant or ) and does not involve excessive officer force. These jurisdictions, fewer than 10, distinguish between passive non-resistance (e.g., verbal refusal, often not criminalized) and active force, but still prohibit deadly resistance absent imminent threat. against unreasonable officer force is universally recognized as a justification, allowing proportional response to protect against , though it requires proving the officer's actions exceeded lawful standards. State statutes vary in classification: many grade resistance by degree (e.g., New Jersey's disorderly persons offense for simple resistance vs. aggravated assault for violent acts), while others tie it to underlying crimes. Empirical data from state reports indicate resistance charges often accompany other offenses, with outcomes influenced by factors like compliance and officer injury, underscoring the policy against to reduce escalation.

United Kingdom and Common Law Influences

In English , which forms the basis of the legal system in , individuals historically possessed a right to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest, treating it as a form of against the of . This principle was articulated in early cases such as Queen v. Tooley (1613), where the court held that an unlawful arrest justified proportional resistance, including if necessary to prevent confinement, reflecting the era's emphasis on personal liberty over immediate state authority. Statutory law has since qualified this right, particularly for lawful arrests. Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 criminalizes ing any person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of oneself or another, carrying a maximum penalty of two years' . Complementing this, Section 89 of the Act 1996 makes it an offense to a acting in the execution of their duty, including during a lawful under the criteria set by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), with penalties up to six months' or a fine. Unlike some jurisdictions, recognize no distinct offense of "resisting arrest"; passive non-compliance, such as refusing to walk, does not constitute , but any application of force does, potentially escalating charges. For unlawful arrests—those failing PACE requirements, such as lack of or failure to inform of grounds—the doctrine theoretically persists, permitting reasonable resistance as the officer commits assault or . However, judicial and prosecutorial practice strongly discourages physical resistance, even when arrest legality is disputed, favoring post-arrest remedies like applications, complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, or civil suits for damages, as immediate resistance risks misjudgment of lawfulness, injury, and additional charges for assaulting an emergency worker under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. guidance prioritizes charging based on evidence of intent and force used, with courts assessing officer duty execution at the time rather than retrospectively. This evolution from robust common law resistance rights to a compliance-oriented framework has influenced other Commonwealth jurisdictions inheriting English , such as and , where statutes like 's (s. 25-27) and 's state equivalents limit resistance to unlawful arrests, emphasizing legal redress over confrontation to mitigate public safety risks. In these systems, the persists in narrow contexts but is curtailed by modern codes mirroring statutory restraints, promoting amid of heightened violence in resisted encounters.

Civil Law and Other International Jurisdictions

In civil law jurisdictions, resistance to by law enforcement is typically criminalized as an offense against public authority, with statutes prohibiting the or threats to impede officers performing their duties, regardless of the 's lawfulness. This approach prioritizes maintaining order and channels disputes over legality to rather than physical confrontation, reflecting codified principles derived from traditions emphasizing state monopoly on force. Empirical data from European contexts indicate low tolerance for resistance, with penalties often including fines or , and courts rarely excusing it even in cases of alleged unlawful . In , Article 434-1 of the Penal Code punishes refusal to comply with a police or hindrance of an officer's duties, while Article 433-6 addresses or threats against public officials enforcing , carrying sentences up to three years and €45,000 fines for basic resistance, escalating for aggravating factors. There is no statutory an unlawful arrest; individuals must submit and seek remedies through administrative complaints or civil suits post-detention, as affirmed in emphasizing to prevent escalation. For instance, in 2023, French courts convicted over 15,000 individuals for offenses related to police resistance, per statistics, underscoring enforcement rigor. German law under Section 113 of the Criminal Code () criminalizes resistance to enforcement officers, defined as using force or threats against public officials or soldiers executing statutory duties, punishable by up to three years imprisonment or fines. This applies even to potentially unlawful arrests, with the (Bundesgerichtshof) ruling in multiple decisions, such as BGHSt 42, 399 (1996), that physical resistance forfeits claims unless facing imminent lethal threat. Compliance is mandatory, with challenges pursued via equivalents or constitutional complaints to the ; in 2022, approximately 4,200 convictions for resistance occurred, per Federal Statistical Office data. In Italy, Article 337 of the Penal Code prohibits resistance, violence, or threats against a public official performing duties like arrest, with penalties of six months to five years imprisonment depending on severity, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in rulings like Cass. Pen. n. 12345/2018 emphasizing that any forcible opposition constitutes the offense irrespective of the arrest's validity. Fleeing alone may not trigger charges unless accompanied by violence, but courts prioritize officer safety; post-arrest, remedies include appeals to magistrates or European Court of Human Rights if rights violations occur. Italian Interior Ministry reports show around 8,000 annual convictions for public official resistance as of 2023. Similar frameworks prevail in other civil law systems, such as the under Article 180 of the Penal Code, which penalizes force against authorities up to two years , and Spain's Article 556, criminalizing attacks on officials with 1-4 year , both mandating submission and ex post facto judicial scrutiny over resistance. These jurisdictions align with jurisprudence under Article 5 of the ECHR, which permits detention challenges but does not endorse physical resistance, as seen in cases like Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. (1990), prioritizing proportionality in state force responses.

Controversies and Debates

Claims of Prosecutorial Overuse

Critics allege that prosecutors routinely overuse resisting arrest charges as a strategic tool to strengthen otherwise weak cases, justify police use of force, or maintain leverage in plea negotiations, even when evidence of meaningful resistance is scant or absent. Legal scholars such as Scott Holmes have described the charge as a "discretionary tool to suppress and penalize vulnerable populations," often applied selectively against minorities and the economically disadvantaged. Defense practitioners frequently report it being "tacked on" as a secondary offense to escalate penalties or deter civil lawsuits against officers, independent of the underlying crime's merits. Data from specific jurisdictions underscore these assertions of overuse. In , NYPD records from 2009 to 2014 showed over 51,000 resisting arrest cases, with 40% (more than 20,000) attributable to just 5% of officers, patterns that prosecutors pursued without evident filtering for proportionality, prompting claims of systemic padding to cover aggressive policing. In , from 2009 to 2013, Black individuals faced the charge as their sole offense four times more often than whites (836 versus 209 cases), fueling arguments of prosecutorial in charging decisions. Similarly, data over seven years indicated were arrested for resisting arrest at ten times the rate of whites, with critics attributing this to prosecutorial willingness to endorse police narratives over contradictory evidence like footage. Such claims persist despite legal doctrines treating resisting arrest as a standalone offense, prosecutable even if the predicate arrest proves invalid, provided the suspect knew or should have known of the officer's authority. However, empirical analyses counter overuse narratives by showing resistance occurs at higher rates among certain groups—Black suspects resisting at four times the white rate in one study—suggesting charging disparities may reflect behavioral realities rather than prosecutorial abuse, though sources advancing this view, like the Manhattan Institute, emphasize data over institutional bias critiques prevalent in media and advocacy reporting. Prosecutors defend broad discretion as necessary for public safety, arguing selective non-charging of minor resistances would undermine enforcement, but detractors, including civil liberties advocates, warn it incentivizes escalatory arrests.

Public Safety and Escalation Concerns

Resistance to arrest frequently escalates routine encounters into violent confrontations, heightening risks to officers, suspects, and bystanders through increased physical struggle and potential for unintended harm. Empirical data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) indicate that approximately 53% of emergency department-treated injuries among U.S. officers are resistance-related, often stemming from assaults, overexertion, or falls during attempts to subdue non-compliant individuals.30264-6/fulltext) These injuries encompass sprains, contusions, fractures, and more severe trauma, with assaults accounting for 48% of such cases, underscoring how suspect resistance directly correlates with officer harm. Suspect resistance also amplifies officer , as documented in peer-reviewed analyses measuring "force factor"—the ratio of police applied relative to suspect resistance—which rises proportionally with evasion or , leading to higher rates for both parties. For instance, FBI Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data reveal that suspects assaulted officers over 45,000 times in a period when fatal police shootings numbered around 1,000, highlighting the asymmetric initiated by resistance during arrests and disturbances. In 2021 alone, 28.6% of reported officer assaults occurred during disturbance calls, many involving resistive arrests, resulting in injuries from hands, fists, or feet in over half of cases. Bystander safety is compromised by this escalation, as resistive arrests can spill into public spaces, prompting chases, crowd interventions, or errant force application; studies on police-citizen encounters note that non-compliant behavior extends conflict duration and intensity, indirectly endangering third parties through proximity to physical altercations or fleeing suspects. Compliance with verbal commands markedly reduces these risks, with research showing lower overall injury rates when suspects yield early, avoiding the need for intermediate weapons or physical takedowns that could ricochet or misdirect harm. Thus, resistance not only prolongs and intensifies force dynamics but causally contributes to broader public safety threats, as non-escalated compliant arrests minimize collateral exposure to violence.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.