Resisting Arrest Prosecutions
✅ Definition: Resisting Arrest
"Resisting arrest" typically refers to knowingly preventing or attempting to prevent a law enforcement officer from making an arrest, either through physical force, threats, or other obstructive actions. The exact definition can vary by jurisdiction (e.g., Model Penal Code vs. state laws), but the common elements include:
Knowledge that the person is a law enforcement officer.
Intentional resistance (not accidental or reflexive).
Use of force, threat, or obstruction.
During a lawful arrest (though some jurisdictions criminalize resistance even during an unlawful arrest).
⚖️ Key Legal Issues in Resisting Arrest Prosecutions
Was the arrest lawful?
Was the officer clearly identified?
Did the defendant use physical force or only verbal opposition?
Was the resistance active or passive?
Was the resistance reasonable under the circumstances?
Now let's examine several important and illustrative case laws.
📚 Case 1: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Topic: Use of force by police; relevant to resisting charges
Facts:
Graham, a diabetic, had a medical episode and rushed into a store for orange juice. Officers suspected a robbery and detained him, using force. He resisted, not understanding the arrest. He later sued for excessive force.
Ruling:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that claims of excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard.
Importance:
While not a resisting arrest case per se, it shapes how force by police is evaluated, which can influence the legality of the arrest and whether resisting charges are proper. If excessive force is used, resistance may be justified in some states.
📚 Case 2: People v. Simms, 36 Cal.App.4th 1827 (1995)
Topic: Lawful vs. unlawful arrest
Facts:
Simms was arrested without a warrant or probable cause. He physically resisted the officers. He was charged with resisting arrest under California Penal Code § 148(a).
Ruling:
The court held that resisting an unlawful arrest is still criminal in California, unless the officer uses excessive force.
Importance:
Even if the arrest is unlawful, a person may not have the right to resist, depending on the jurisdiction. Courts often emphasize resolving disputes through legal channels, not street resistance.
📚 Case 3: State v. Prescott, 753 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988)
Topic: Officer identity and defendant's knowledge
Facts:
Prescott was stopped by plainclothes officers who didn’t identify themselves. He resisted, believing he was being attacked by civilians.
Ruling:
Conviction for resisting arrest was overturned. The court found no evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the person attempting the arrest was a police officer.
Importance:
One cannot be convicted of resisting arrest without knowing the person is a police officer. This case underscores the knowledge element of the offense.
📚 Case 4: State v. Barnes, 491 N.E.2d 321 (Ind. 1986)
Topic: Right to resist unlawful arrest
Facts:
Barnes was charged with resisting law enforcement when he physically opposed an unlawful entry by police into his home.
Ruling:
Originally, Indiana recognized a common-law right to resist unlawful entry. The court allowed resistance to unlawful police conduct in certain scenarios.
Update:
Later in Barnes v. State, 953 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2011), the Indiana Supreme Court abolished the right to resist unlawful entry/arrest, holding that disputes should be settled in court.
Importance:
This progression shows the legal shift away from the right to resist unlawful arrest toward a focus on legal remedies over physical confrontation.
📚 Case 5: Commonwealth v. Moreira, 388 Mass. 596 (1983)
Topic: Passive resistance vs. active resistance
Facts:
Moreira was involved in a scuffle with police officers during a mistaken identity arrest. He flailed and struggled but did not strike officers.
Ruling:
The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that mere refusal to submit or passive resistance does not necessarily constitute resisting arrest. There must be affirmative physical action.
Importance:
Distinguishes between passive resistance (e.g., going limp) and active resistance (e.g., pushing, hitting). Only the latter typically meets the standard for prosecution.
📚 Case 6: United States v. Span, 970 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992)
Topic: Intent and physical obstruction
Facts:
Span fled from officers attempting to arrest him on a warrant. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for resisting a federal officer.
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that flight to avoid arrest can qualify as resisting or impeding officers when it creates risk or delay.
Importance:
Shows that non-violent resistance, such as flight, can be enough to sustain resisting charges if it materially interferes with law enforcement duties.
📚 Case 7: People v. McKinney, 234 Ill. App. 3d 900 (1992)
Topic: Verbal vs. physical resistance
Facts:
McKinney was charged after verbally arguing with an officer and refusing to cooperate. He did not touch or physically obstruct the officer.
Ruling:
Court found verbal opposition alone is not sufficient for resisting arrest under Illinois law. There must be physical conduct.
Importance:
Verbal protest, even rude or non-cooperative behavior, does not rise to the level of criminal resistance unless accompanied by physical acts.
🔍 Summary of Key Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Description | Key Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Lawful Arrest Requirement | Resistance during a lawful arrest is prosecutable; some states even criminalize resistance during unlawful arrests. | Simms, Barnes |
| Knowledge of Officer’s Identity | Defendant must know or reasonably believe the person is a law enforcement officer. | Prescott |
| Active vs. Passive Resistance | Only active physical resistance generally qualifies; passive or verbal opposition may not be enough. | Moreira, McKinney |
| Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest | Historically recognized in some states, but now widely limited or abolished. | Barnes |
| Flight as Resistance | Running away can be enough for resisting arrest, especially if it impedes officers. | Span |
| Use of Force by Officers | Excessive force by officers may justify resistance in some states, but the trend is to discourage physical resistance. | Graham |
🧠 Practical Considerations in Resisting Arrest Charges
Prosecutors must prove intent and knowing resistance.
Defense may argue lack of knowledge, unlawful arrest, or excessive force.
Modern legal trend discourages physical resistance—even against illegal arrests—favoring legal remedies (e.g., suppression motions, civil suits).
RELATED Blog
0 comments