Cecily Zamora
The laws surrounding resisting arrest vary from state to state, but generally, a person can be arrested for resisting an officer if they intentionally impede, hinder, or delay the officer's attempt to perform a lawful arrest. This can include physical acts, such as pulling away or fleeing, or non-physical acts, such as refusing to obey orders or providing false information. In some states, a person may have the right to resist an unlawful arrest using reasonable force, but this can be difficult to quantify, and the use of excessive force can result in criminal charges. It is important to note that the law still recognizes the right to self-defence, even against police officers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Nature of the crime | Refusal to obey orders, physical acts (e.g. pulling away, fleeing, going limp), threats of violence, opposing or impeding an officer's duties |
| Lawful execution of duty | Officers must have probable cause, such as objective circumstances or a reported crime, to make a lawful arrest |
| Self-defence | Citizens may have a limited right to use reasonable force in self-defence if officers use excessive force first |
| State laws | Vary on acts constituting resisting arrest, with some requiring physical acts and others counting refusal to obey as resisting |
| Charges | Resisting arrest, obstruction, disorderly conduct, assault, battery, or other criminal charges |
| Intent | Intentional acts to impede, hinder, or delay an arrest can result in resisting arrest charges |
| Knowledge | Defendants must know or have reason to know they are resisting a law enforcement officer |
| Law enforcement officer | Definition includes police and deputies, but can be broader depending on the state |
| Official duties | Officers must be lawfully discharging their official duties, such as investigating a crime or making a traffic stop |
| Lawful arrest | Even if the wrong person is arrested or charges are dropped, an officer can still be acting lawfully |
| Unlawful arrest | Some states allow resisting with reasonable force, while others require citizens to comply and challenge the arrest later |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The use of reasonable force
The leading case on the use of force is the 1989 Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor. The Court held that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its objective reasonableness standard. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight. This standard has been criticized for its subjectivity and for not clearly defining who a reasonable officer is, allowing for the possibility of institutional biases to influence an officer's perception of threat.
The objective test requires officers to rely on their senses and articulate a factual basis for their actions. Facts that could cause a court to find that the force was reasonable include the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and the suspect's actions. For example, an officer might write in their report that they saw the suspect run into a store, run back out less than 10 seconds later, and get into a car. The officer might then state that they believed the suspect was under the influence of alcohol based on their experience with intoxicated people.
In some states, citizens have a limited right to use force in self-defense if an officer uses excessive force during an arrest. However, this is generally only the amount of force necessary to protect oneself, and using more force than is reasonable can result in criminal charges.
Executive Lawmaking: Without Congressional Approval?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Self-defence
In most states, people do not have the right to resist arrest, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. This is because resistance can escalate the situation and make it dangerous for the arrestee, officers, and bystanders. However, if an officer uses excessive force that could result in serious bodily harm or death, arrestees may have the right to defend themselves. This is because most states hold that an officer's use of excessive force amounts to assault or battery, which a victim has the right to defend against.
The right to self-defence in the context of an arrest is similar to the rules of self-defence in general. A person must reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of suffering bodily harm or death before resorting to self-defence. They can only use as much force as is necessary to protect themselves, and this force must be proportional to the amount of excessive force used by the arresting officer. If an officer stops using excessive force, the suspect can no longer justify the use of further force.
The specific rules around self-defence and resisting arrest vary by state. In some states, a person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest by using a reasonable amount of force to prevent or stop the arrest. However, if a person uses more force than is reasonable, they can be charged with assault and battery or other criminal charges. In other states, any use of force to resist arrest is unlawful, and citizens must comply with an arrest by a police officer, even if they believe the arrest is unlawful. They can challenge the arrest once they have been taken into custody.
If you face charges relating to an altercation with an officer, it is important to seek the help of an experienced attorney.
German Law vs. EU Law: Who Trumps Whom?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Obstruction
In some states, a person has the right to resist an unlawful or illegal arrest, but only by using a reasonable amount of force to prevent or stop the arrest. However, determining what constitutes a "reasonable amount of force" can be challenging. Using a deadly weapon or pulling your arms away and running would likely not be considered reasonable. If a person uses more force than is deemed reasonable, they can be charged with assault and battery or other criminal charges.
It is important to note that the law enforcement officer does not need to be correct in their belief that a crime was committed for the arrest to be considered lawful. The officer only needs probable cause, which means they can point to objective circumstances leading them to believe the suspect committed a crime. For example, if a crime was reported and you were in the vicinity, an officer may have probable cause to arrest you, even if you are innocent.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are being arrested, even if you believe the officer is making a mistake, it is generally advised to cooperate, remain calm, and ask for an attorney. Resisting a lawful arrest will only add to your legal troubles and can make resolving your case more difficult. If you have been arrested without good cause, you may be able to file a lawsuit for unlawful arrest.
In terms of obstruction by third parties, they can be convicted of resisting arrest if they interfere with the law enforcement officer's duties. This includes actions such as talking to the accused person, jeering, swearing, or uttering anything that endangers the arresting officer.
International Law: Saving Child Soldiers?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Interference with law enforcement
State laws vary on the specific acts and threats that constitute resisting arrest. Some states require a physical act of some kind, such as pulling away, actively fleeing, or even going limp. Other states count any type of refusal to obey orders as resisting arrest, including refusing to turn around and put hands on a car. Even pulling back one's arms or slamming a door in an officer's face can be considered resisting arrest in certain states. Non-physical acts, such as threats of violence, may also be considered resisting arrest, even if the person does not act on them.
In some states, a person may have the right to resist an unlawful arrest by using reasonable force. However, this right is not universal, and many states require citizens to comply with an arrest, even if they believe it to be unlawful. The use of force must be reasonable and necessary, responding only to the use of force by the officer. If the officer stops using excessive force, the suspect can no longer justify the use of further force and must stop resisting.
It is important to note that resisting a lawful arrest, even if one believes it to be unlawful, can result in criminal charges. While it may be tempting to argue with an officer, it is generally better to argue one's point in a courtroom rather than on the street. If one believes an arrest was unlawful, they can file a lawsuit for unlawful arrest after the fact.
Moral Law: Superior or Subservient to Legal Statutes?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Unlawful arrest
The definition of an unlawful arrest is an arrest that is not authorized by law, such as an arrest without a warrant or probable cause. In some states, a person may resist an unlawful arrest, but only with reasonable force. Reasonable force is generally considered to be only the amount of force necessary to resist the arrest. However, determining what constitutes reasonable force can be difficult to quantify. For example, using a deadly weapon against an officer would not be considered reasonable. If a person uses more force than is considered reasonable, they can face harsh penalties for assault and battery of a police officer.
State laws vary on what acts and threats constitute resisting arrest. Some states require a physical act of some kind, while others count any type of refusal to obey orders as resisting arrest. Non-physical acts, such as threats of violence, will typically be considered resisting arrest, even if the person does not act on them. Additionally, some states include quoting the officer, using profanity, giving false information, or arguing in a heated manner in their definition of resisting arrest. For example, in Florida, resisting arrest can be interpreted as obstructing an officer in the lawful execution of any legal duty.
It is important to note that resisting arrest is a crime, regardless of whether the underlying arrest was proper. Even if an arrest is unlawful, it is generally advised that individuals do not resist arrest, as it can be dangerous and lead to serious injuries or even death. Instead, the legality of an arrest should be contested in a courtroom rather than on the streets.
Executive Power: Immigration Laws and Presidential Orders
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Resisting arrest occurs when a person interferes with a law enforcement officer's attempt to perform a lawful arrest. Some states require a physical act of some kind, such as pulling away, actively fleeing, or even going limp. Other states count any type of refusal to obey orders as resisting arrest.
An unlawful arrest is an arrest that is not authorized by law, such as an arrest without a warrant or probable cause.
Depending on the state, you may or may not have the right to resist an unlawful arrest by using force. If you have this right, the use of force must be reasonable and necessary. However, many states have eliminated this right and require citizens to comply with an arrest, even if they believe it may not be legal.
If you resist a lawful arrest, you can face criminal charges for your actions. You could be charged with resisting arrest, which can be a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the circumstances and the state.
