Resistance to unlawful arrest

[LeeRoy]

This is mostly for non-cop posters. I'm curious how many of you think citizens should have a right to resist unlawful arrests by police? If yes then what level can they resist? Enough to overcome resistance? Enough to get away? No limits?

I think allowing folks to resist some arrests is a slippery slope. Provided government and the courts are working, ie were not in Anarchy, then resisting what you believe is an unlawful arrest is a bad idea. We have a court system that can compensate victimes of false arrests and punish officials for purposefully violating the law.

What do you think?

[pvtbuddie]

Only if you believe that you are in serious danger. 1: Because it's dangerous to resist. 2: Because you should do what you're told. If someone in authority is wrongly telling you to do something, you still do it, unless you are being told to do something that is wrong. 3: Because it will be easier to make your case later if you haven't behaved badly.

[nitromt]

This is mostly for non-cop posters. I'm curious how many of you think citizens should have a right to resist unlawful arrests by police? If yes then what level can they resist? Enough to overcome resistance? Enough to get away? No limits?

I think allowing folks to resist some arrests is a slippery slope. Provided government and the courts are working, ie were not in Anarchy, then resisting what you believe is an unlawful arrest is a bad idea. We have a court system that can compensate victimes of false arrests and punish officials for purposefully violating the law.

What do you think?

I agree with the law enforcement community in a practical sense. Resisting arrest, even illegal arrest, may not be in the best interests of the individual. However, having laws that say a citizen MUST not resist an illegal arrest in ALL cases, is not in the best interests of the general welfare.

I think we have to get a sense of what exactly an illegal arrest actually is. While I don't know what each and every state would consider an illegal arrest, I would generally consider an illegal arrest as big mess up on the part of LE. For example, they conduct a high risk warrant arrest with SWAT on the wrong address. That homeowner should not be punished because he had a legitimate reason for self-defense and he had no reason to expect the government to deprive him of his rights.

[jerrymaccauley]

How many people who are not LEO's know all of the laws? When you are being arrested, your recourse is in the courts, not on the street. If the officer was wrong, you will be able to play the lawsuit lottery. If he is right, you will be slapped with a resisting arrest charge on top of the other charges, and possible get injured in the prrocess.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

As I'm a poster who isn't in law enforcement, I'll answer this one, if it was intended for me.

When you say "unlawful arrest", what are you saying? This is a big can of worms with a side helping of pig intestine.

Is this "unlawful arrest" a police officer who may have violated the 4th ammendment's search and seizure restrictions by acting on what he thougth is PC (but later it is determined it was only RS) and taking someone into custody unlawfuly?

Is "unlawful arrest" a field detention that lasts too long to be reasonable, and has crossed the line into arrest?

Is "unlawful arrest" a cop who sees a woman and decides he is going to use his badge to get her alone and assault her?

Unlawful arrest covers too broad a reach to answer comfortably at this juncture.


This breaks down into 2 things:

1 - Good faith actions
or
2 - Everything else

Generaly speaking, from a legal point of view without knowing the facts of the situation referenced above, if you know or have reason to believe that the officer is acting in GOOD FAITH, although wrongly, as in you match the description of someone wanted, and you, the arrestee, aren't involved in any hinky **** which would make someone in uniform want to kill you due to his 'off the books, overtime job' (imply what you will), the officer isn't trying to detain you indefinately for some reason...

Go with him, demand your attorney, then close mouth, and sort it out in the court system.

If, for some reason, the cop is not acting in good faith for some reason, you are up s-it's creek without a paddle.

How much force can you use?

Legal answer...it depends. Is the situation "resisting arrest" or "Self defense"

You don't answer a question until you define the question.

I'm not trying to get the "what does is mean..." hair splitting on you, but unlawful arrest is a broad topic with too much depth and meaning to discuss without narrowly defining it.

Take another example, the police want to do a 2 AM raid on a house and they raid 123 Carlton ave, instead of 123 Clinton ave because of a typo or some sort of fu-kup.

Its a no, knock warant, and oops...the house is occupied by Ralph.

Ralph is a former USMC Force Recon guy who recently retired on a hardship discharge because his mother is ill and needed to be home with mom.

Oh, did I forget to mention...1st thing he did after coming back from Afganistan was to get a Bushmaster M-4 clone and a Wilson 1911. (Retired or not, he is a Marine - HO YA!!)

For this example, stipulate that Ralph is NOT involved in criminal activity.

The door gets kicked in, a flash bang goes off, cops are screaming POLICE...and the entry team goes in and instead of finding Reggie the Meth Monkey and his lab, they find Ralph, who is now unable to hear, confused, roused from a sound sleep thinking he is...who knows where, but the **** is hitting the fan and although deff and its smoky and dark...he was doing this **** for the past 15 years so he isn't out of the fight completely...and when the smoke clears, and he finaly is able to hear again, and figures out "HOLY FU-K IT WAS THE COPS!!!" and surrenders...2 officers are dead (don't bring pistol rated body armor to a fight with rifles) and 3 severely injured from gunshot wounds to the legs...

Define Ralph's actions:
Murder and attempted murder?
Resisting arrest?
Reasonable acts of self defense responding to (from his point of view) a completely surprise home invasion?
Other?
All?
None?

Did he resist arrest? Hell yes!
Is he guilty of anything? Humm...

Too much depth to this question to even attempt to answer without detailed facts and situations.

[tgace]

Bottom line is 9 times out of 10 the person being arrested doesnt know if the cop has PC or not. So making the decisin to resist is a bad gamble.

[Iceman33]

Good call. If I didn't do anything wrong, then I've got nothing to worry about. Are you sure you’re being arrested? Or are you being detained? I would make sure that I knew which one was happening before I ever thought about resisting. Which I would never do anyways.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

How many people who are not LEO's know all of the laws?

I think its more of an issue of knowing what questions to ask and where & how to look.

[ProWriter]

I believe about a dozen states still allow you to reasonably resist unlawful arrest, but those statutes are absolutely no help to you if you're wrong about the circumstances, and unless you're an expert in the laws of your jurisdiction, it's not a good idea. Even if you are an expert in local laws on point, that's still not going to be much help to you if you wind up with two dislocated shoulders and a few broken ribs, or shot dead, even though you happened to be 100% "right" about the lawfulness of the arrest at the time.

Your safest and best bet is to just submit to the initial arrest, and maybe explain whatever circumstantial reason you think it's unlawful after you're secured (like "Officer, this isn't even apartment 2-D and my ID is right there on the table" etc.) but not say anything else at all about whatever you did or didn't do whether or not you've been read your rights, or to say anything at all besides "I'd like to talk to my lawyer" once they've been read to you. There might be some things you could say in your own defense before you're actually locked up about the circumstances without admitting anything that could be used against you, but unless you're formally trained in law, you shouldn't assume what things you could safely say without hurting your defense later. Keep your mouth shut and take it up in civil court afterwards.

If by "unlawful" you don't mean the circumstances or the crime for which you're being arrested but the authority or jurisdiction of the officer, you do have a legal right to resist, but you better be 100% right about that. Unless you have reasonable doubts about whether or not the arresting officer is actually a LEO in the first place, the disclocated shoulders/cracked ribs/shot dead analysis would probably still be your best bet, even if it's an off duty court or corrections officer way out of his geographic area of employment or jurisdiction or enforcement authority, expressing his road rage under illegal color of apparent authority, for example. If you end up dead, your "civil rights" still don't really help you much even if he eventually loses his job and gets sentenced for depriving you of them after your funeral.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

This is mostly for non-cop posters. I'm curious how many of you think citizens should have a right to resist unlawful arrests by police? If yes then what level can they resist? Enough to overcome resistance? Enough to get away? No limits?



Can I ask why you wanted to ask this question? Is this a measure of mindset or something of that nature?

[Soon2Be]

I am currently a civilian. I'd rather comply, and let it get sorted out, then fight and resist, and still get arrested, and then it gets sorted out.

In Canada, people DO have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but very few people have the education to know exactly what is an unlawful arrest.

[LeeRoy]

Can I ask why you wanted to ask this question? Is this a measure of mindset or something of that nature?

Nitromt brought up the issue in an another thread that got deleted through no fault of his home. I thought it would make for a lively discussion.

[Bing_Oh]

Two major issues in regards to resisting an "unlawful arrest."

First, as has already been touched on, how does the individual know the arrest is unlawful. Do most average citizens know the minimum legal requirements for a lawful arrest? It's probable cause. Could they define (in layman's terms) probable cause for me? Also, as a police officer, I am in no way required to present my probable cause to the person I'm arresting. I don't have to show you my evidence or parade my witnesses in front of you before I physcially arrest you...that's all for court, not on the street.

Second, a person who resists arrest is going to cause an escalation. Someone who resists arrest will, by their own actions, push me up the use of force continuum. The more you fight, the higher up the use of force continuum I go, until you're looking at being sprayed or hit with an impact weapon or even shot. Do you really want to risk that as opposed to simply submitting to the arrest and then fighting it in court (and, potentially, getting all my stuff when you sue me for the unlawful arrest...along with settlements from my employer)?

Common sense says that, even if you DO think it's an unlawful arrest, it's wiser to fight in court as opposed to fighting on the street.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Two major issues in regards to resisting an "unlawful arrest."

First, as has already been touched on, how does the individual know the arrest is unlawful. Do most average citizens know the minimum legal requirements for a lawful arrest? It's probable cause. Could they define (in layman's terms) probable cause for me?

Layman's terms...no.

But... :D

Probable cause has been defined as the knowledge of facts sufficient to justify a reasonable man in the belief that he has
reasonable grounds for prosecuting an action. Paranto v. Ball, 132 Conn. 568, 571, 46 A.2d 6.

Mere conjecture or suspicion is insufficient. Zitkov v. Zaleski, 102 Conn. 439, 445, 128 A. 779.

Moreover, belief alone, no matter how sincere it may be, is not enough, since it must be based on circumstances which make it reasonable. Shea v. Berry, 93 Conn. 475, 478, 106 A. 761.

The above were internaly cited cases in - ZENIK v. O’BRIEN, 137 Conn. 592 (1951)

-----

The precise meaning of "probable cause" is somewhat uncertain. Most academic debates over the years have centered around the differences between "more probable than not" and "substantial possibility". The former involves the elements of certainty and technical knowledge. The latter involves the elements of fairness and common sense. There's more adherents of the latter approach, but how do you define common sense. Supreme Court case law has indicated that rumor, mere suspicion, and even "strong reason to suspect" are not equivalent to probable cause. Over the years, at least three definitions have emerged as the best statements:

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm
________

Ok. I cheated. I'm not a layman. I have a hard drive and notebooks filled with this stuff...and my account at Loislaw.com helps too... :o

[Mitchell_in_CT]

What some people may think is an arrest may not be one, it may be a terry frisk:

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878).[fn23]

And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled
to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.

To the arestee, they are the same, a detention and removal of liberty, but for differnet goals and going for differnt goals:

A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to
Page 26
arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly
circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967)
(MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus it must be
limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of
weapons which might be used to harm the officer or
others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as
something less than a "full" search, even though it
remains a serious intrusion.

A second, and related, objection to petitioner's argument
is that it assumes that the law of arrest has already
worked out the balance between the particular interests
involved here — the neutralization of danger to the policeman
in the investigative circumstance and the sanctity
of the individual. But this is not so. An arrest is a
wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom
from a limited search for weapons, and the interests
each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An
arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It
is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its
laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future
interference with the individual's freedom of movement,
whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows.[fn22]
The protective search for weapons, on the other hand,
constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion
upon the sanctity of the person. It does not follow
that because an officer may lawfully arrest a person only
when he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a belief
that the person has committed or is committing a crime,
the officer is equally unjustified, absent that kind of evidence,
in making any intrusions short of an arrest.
Moreover, a perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger
may arise long before the officer is possessed of adequate
information to justify taking a person into custody for
Page 27
the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's
reliance on cases which have worked out standards of
reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting
arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced.
It assumes that the interests sought to be vindicated and
the invasions of personal security may be equated in the
two cases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis
of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct
under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal
Court, supra.

Terry v. Ohio, supra.

[SHERIFF]

We just had a discussion on this very same topic........

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45889&highlight=resist+unlawful+arrest

[jwise]

I agree that the definition of "unlawful arrest" must be further explored in order to give a better answer.

If it were merely a "good faith" arrest without the necessary PC to hold up in court, no resistance is justified.

However if officers are overtly violating the rights of the citizens, either causing physical harm (beating a subject) or emotional harm (sexual assault), it becomes self defense, and the citizen should use "that force which is necessary..."

[Operator13]

I am currently a civilian. I'd rather comply, and let it get sorted out, then fight and resist, and still get arrested, and then it gets sorted out.


EXACTLY. Why take a bad situation & make it worse.

Everyone sues for everything anymore. You think you're being unlawfully arrested? Just go along & play nice with the officer.

If you're right you'll make a ton of money and if you're wrong you'll save yourself from additional charges.

My dad was never big on giving advice but he did tell me this pearl of wisdom "Don't run from the cops, they have radios."

[pvtbuddie]

If it was a "good faith" arrest, why sue?

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Good Faith to me means a situation like the po-po is looking for a white ford being driven by a white guy that was just involved in a shooting, and as I am coming back from the range and have a few spare 9mm casings on the floor my car which fell out of my bag, and the car is stopped, the officer approaches, sees the empty brass, a white ford and a white guy imediately takes me out of the car at gunpoint, puts me on the ground and cuffs me, then detains me till its all sorted out.

Depending on the use of force, their may not even be a case, as you get qualified imunity for your actions which are done in good faith.

Good faith I would say is dependant on the care taken in the decission making process leading up to the actions.

Take the same situation with the same facts, but instead of seeing the brass on the seat first, I am pulled over, the officer does not see brass (I'm talking 2 or 3 casings on the floor of the car slightly under a seat) but on his initial approach storms up to the driver's side door, cracks the window with the stock of his shotgun, shoves the barrel in right against my throat, then pulls me out through the broken window (all the while with a shotgun to my head), throws me to the ground, applies some boot to my ribs, then cuffs me, and then finds the brass under the seat.

Assume for this example that the brass is NOT visible unless you were standing right up next to the car and looking from the front quarter of the vehicle down into it, slightly under the seat.

Also assume that the car does not have any warrants on it, and in all cases the driver has hands on the wheel, makes no sudden movements...

Ok, he had a shooting suspect which fits a description of white car driven by white man...but does he have anything in this case to merit treating a citizen like the second example?

I would say the first example's case is done in good faith, and the second one's is not.

Its good faith when you are following a logical progression of situation and evidence to reach using force to detain and/or arrest someone.

I would say that it is not when your actions are unsubstantiated and unjustified by haste, carelessness or negligence.

Courts don't demand you be right, they demand you act reasonably under a given set of circumstances. Good faith does too.

As to suing if something is done is good faith, its not your subjective definition of good faith that matters, its an objective definition that must also be weighed.

In case #2, assume the officer sincerely believed he was doing what needed to be done and didn't have any desire to thump someone just because he felt like it...HOWEVER, he still used force against a citizen without having a reason to do so (yet) and it isn't good faith to go off like that without more than a general description.

The wrong doors are kicked in sometimes, but was it the result of some dealer deliberately changing the numbers on the appartments...or was it because someone said "Its appartment 6-something on the 3rd floor...just go, we know were the place is..." and then they throw in a flashbang on grandma.

In other words, its not a personal view, but asking if the actions taken in the situation, looked at using the totality of circumstances, a reasonable action taken in the furtherance of a legitimate purpose.

If the end goal of the actions is NOT a legitimate purpose, i.e. someone just wants to cop a feel of a college chick who was speeding, you have no reason to suspect she is carrying a weapon, but you do a VERY detailed terry frisk "just to make sure" then their can be no good faith.

[1sgkelly]

This is mostly for non-cop posters. I'm curious how many of you think citizens should have a right to resist unlawful arrests by police? If yes then what level can they resist? Enough to overcome resistance? Enough to get away? No limits?

I think allowing folks to resist some arrests is a slippery slope. Provided government and the courts are working, ie were not in Anarchy, then resisting what you believe is an unlawful arrest is a bad idea. We have a court system that can compensate victimes of false arrests and punish officials for purposefully violating the law.

What do you think?


Kind of hard to argue your point, if you're dead.

;)

[WPDGlock22]

Police officers go through extensive training to learn what constitutes a lawful arrest. It's not up to a civilian to determine if they are being unlawfully arrested or not. Shoot, most of the ones I have come across all claim to being unlawfully arrested. There are some exceptions to that, but not many. If you believe you are being unlawfully arrested, do what you're told by the officer and take it up with him/her legally after it's over and done with.


This is mostly for non-cop posters. I'm curious how many of you think citizens should have a right to resist unlawful arrests by police? If yes then what level can they resist? Enough to overcome resistance? Enough to get away? No limits?

I think allowing folks to resist some arrests is a slippery slope. Provided government and the courts are working, ie were not in Anarchy, then resisting what you believe is an unlawful arrest is a bad idea. We have a court system that can compensate victimes of false arrests and punish officials for purposefully violating the law.

What do you think?

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Let me make it clear that I'm not a proponent of resisting arrest.

If someone in uniform is really out to kill you or otherwise harm you, and wants to use their authority to do it, you are kinda fuc-ed from the outset, but hopefuly that is a rare occurance, and if it happens, you may not know it till its too late.

I find that many of the people who claim "Yo, the cops have it out for me" are not telling you about the times they bit the cops trying to take them in, spit on them, took a swing at them, told them how they were going to "find that pretty wife of yours..." or worse.

No shi+ they have it out for you, dumb*****...that still doesn't make the arrest unlawful.

[Gil]

This is mostly for non-cop posters. I'm curious how many of you think citizens should have a right to resist unlawful arrests by police? If yes then what level can they resist? Enough to overcome resistance? Enough to get away? No limits?

I think allowing folks to resist some arrests is a slippery slope. Provided government and the courts are working, ie were not in Anarchy, then resisting what you believe is an unlawful arrest is a bad idea. We have a court system that can compensate victimes of false arrests and punish officials for purposefully violating the law.

What do you think?

Obey the orders, comply, then grieve and file a complaint later. Even if a person deems it an "unlawful" and resist, they may end upinjured dead either way.

[Centurion44]

Obey the orders, comply, then grieve and file a complaint later. Even if a person deems it an "unlawful" and resist, they may end upinjured dead either way.

Tell that to the guy in New York who was sodomized with a broom handle by officers. Should have he just taken it and then complained later? (obviously that's what he did, but...) What if that were you?

I understand telling every Joe Dirtbag he has the right to resist unlawful arrest is opening up a can of worms. Which is why we don't tell Joe Dirtbag.

But you better believe if my family was getting "arrested" by someone pretending to be a cop for no reason, I'd hope they'd fight tooth and nail.

We are here to serve the people. Not the other way around.

[OLDSPLE]

As far as the state statute here works. You cannot resist arrest even if it is deemed unlawful. The courts handle it should they find that the arrest was unlawful.

[Gil]

Tell that to the guy in New York who was sodomized with a broom handle by officers. Should have he just taken it and then complained later? (obviously that's what he did, but...) What if that were you?

I understand telling every Joe Dirtbag he has the right to resist unlawful arrest is opening up a can of worms. Which is why we don't tell Joe Dirtbag.

But you better believe if my family was getting "arrested" by someone pretending to be a cop for no reason, I'd hope they'd fight tooth and nail.

We are here to serve the people. Not the other way around.

Well, Centurion, of course I'm going to fight back in such an extreme or similar circumstance. I'm generally speaking here. In addition, that does not happen everyday, and the ones who did it are some sick ****s.

[LeeRoy]

Tell that to the guy in New York who was sodomized with a broom handle by officers.



That's really taking this to the extreme. I'm talking about your basic unlawful arrest, not a felony sexual assault by a couple of rogue knuckleheads in a stationhouse bathroom. There isn't a court in this country that says you can't defend yourself from a felony assault.

The situations I'm thinking of are the routine arrests where the probable cause is deficient. Some states say that suspect can wrestle away and take off from the officer and not be guilty of resisting/obstructing.

[Gil]

That's really taking this to the extreme. I'm talking about your basic unlawful arrest, not a felony sexual assault by a couple of rogue knuckleheads in a stationhouse bathroom. There isn't a court in this country that says you can't defend yourself from a felony assault.

The situations I'm thinking of are the routine arrests where the probable cause is deficient. Some states say that suspect can wrestle away and take off from the officer and not be guilty of resisting/obstructing.

My point exactly

[Centurion44]

Well, if you're speaking generally, then most cops are acting in good faith- whether the arrest was legal or not- so I doubt most people who feel they were illegaly arrested can take the case anywhere outside of civil court.

I just cited the broomhandle incident because it did happen, and you better believe a citizen should have the right to protect themselves from such abuse.

[So Fla Cop]

Kind of hard to argue your point, if you're dead.

;)

Very basic and excellent point. It seems that that perspective is missed by many in this discussion.

[21blue28]

I believe the general idea is this: An officer doesn't have to arrest someone who is guilty. He just has to have probable cause. PC involves probabilities. As in, a crime most likely occurred and this is the guy who most likely did it. Just different levels of "proof.

Reasonable suspicion
Probably cause
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Heck, even at the court stage it sometimes gets screwed up ..... but very, very rarely. At RS, some people are innocent of a crime. At PC, even less. Again, at trial way less than as portrayed on tv (I hate that show that just came on this year, is it still playing?).

The bottom line is, if you resist for a crime that you didn't commit, but the officer has PC on you, you can still go to jail for fighting the police. And rightfully so.

[SHERIFF]

Tell that to the guy in New York who was sodomized with a broom handle by officers.

If that person was physically able to disable every cop present, he had a perfect right to do so.

But under those circumstances, things would have changed quite a bit. The detective who turned state's evidence in the end and told the truth about what they did to the guy.... probably wouldn't have if he had had his *** handed to him by the guy.

There's a lot of people nationwide who lost all faith in the law enforcement profession over that one case.

[Centurion44]

As we all know, it only takes one bad act by one (or a few) bad officers to undo the credibility of millions of acts done by thousands of good officers.

[1sgkelly]

As we all know, it only takes one bad act by one (or a few) bad officers to undo the credibility of millions of acts done by thousands of good officers.


Or to put it in the words of the great philosopher:
One ah $hit wipes out ten thousand atta boys.

[Gil]

Well, if you're speaking generally, then most cops are acting in good faith- whether the arrest was legal or not- so I doubt most people who feel they were illegaly arrested can take the case anywhere outside of civil court.

I just cited the broomhandle incident because it did happen, and you better believe a citizen should have the right to protect themselves from such abuse.

Well taken, Centurion..

[TechnoWeenie]

I have been falsely arrested, and, I KNEW it was bogus, but went in without a fight,very cooperative, and released on my own recognizance because of it,went to court, and not only was the case thrown out , the officer was chastised by the judge for bringing an OBVIOUSLY BS case to court, and cautioned him about perjuring himself.

Had I resisted, or put up a fuss, I'm sure there would have been more bogus charges,and I would have been waiting in jail for a few days,AND his accusations might have held a little more weight, if he said I had resisted,with the logic of "If you're not guilty, then why did you try to run(fight,whatever)?"

moral of the story, cool heads prevail.

THAT was an instance of a DELIBERATE action..

however, I do believe there are instances where there are good intentions,such as the previous situation where there is a raid on the wrong house, and I'd pretty much guarantee that joe blow defending his house WOULD be shot/killed/wounded by the entry team, and then it would be justified,saying he was a dangerous person, since he was shooting at police,and it's just a big mixup.I don't think resistance is a good thing, it only HURTS your case.

There was a situation in Maryland YEARS ago, county police were doing a drug sting, a man was supposed to be delivering drugs to a bar, a gentleman got out of his car,who very roughly matched the description of the suspect,with nothing in his hands, and was walking to the bar, officers JUMPED on him, unfortunately, this gentleman was NOT the guy, AND, this gentleman also happened to be a karate instructor, a few officers were injured, one with a broken bone(wrist,IIRC), and he surrendered when the officers finally identified themselves, and had their weapons drawn.They arrested him for assault/battery on a police officer, and resisting arrest,multiple counts. It went to court, and it was ruled that the arrest was unlawful, THEREFORE there was no resisting arrest,AND, as far as law was concerned, it was the OFFICERS who had assaulted the gentleman... in this situation, there was good intent, but **** poor planning/procedures.The officers DID NOT identify themselves, they were NOT wearing visible identification,they ASSUMED it was the gentleman they were looking for.Luckily,the gentleman refused to file a lawsuit,stating that the officers had pretty much learned their lesson,and it was a big misunderstanding.

The only time I can think of resistance being "OK", is if you KNOW your life/health is in danger, and I really don't think that would ever be the case.Officers these days are even more aware of their actions because of lawsuits.

[zap]

Mitchell_in_CT is right. It is kind of hard to debate law with a lawyer because they can and do often argue both sides :p

BUT, I think he clearly pointed out that the average citizen will have no real grasp on what IS or IS NOT a legal arrest.

From the LEO side of things.... the other posters were also correct, the side of the street at 0dark30 in the morning is NOT the place to make your legal assessment of our actions. We are basically the biggest street gang in the world...and we always win those engagements.

Pick your battles...if we are wrong...mistaken or otherwise...make your fight in court where you have a chance (and won't get hurt).

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Mitchell_in_CT is right.

Please try not to say that too often. It gives me a big head. :D

It is kind of hard to debate law with a lawyer because they can and do often argue both sides

You have to find out what the question is before you can answer it.

The question was "Is it ever lawful to resist arrest?" but until you can pin down "what circumstances" the question becomes moot and an excercise in conflicting opinion.

That kind of discussion is useless and stressful for all involved. It also acomplishes nothing.

Its like someone asking what they can carry for self defense...but where are they? A cop from FL is going to tell someone a different answer than one from LA, and both will tell him something different from a cop in the UK, and all will be different from a cop in Vermont....and then it varies by age ...and everyone will be right for their point of view, but its still useless to the questioner unless the people answering elicit more info as to the circumstances.

[zap]

I think he clearly pointed out that the average citizen will have no real grasp on what IS or IS NOT a legal arrest.


Umm...isn't that pretty much what I said? ;)

[AvalancheZ71]

Here are a couple of Tennessee statutes on the matter.

39-11-611. Self-defense.
......
(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

HOWEVER,

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search - Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.

(a) 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 such 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.

.......
HOWEVER,

39-16-603. Evading arrest.

.....
(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection (a) that the attempted arrest was unlawful.
.....
(b) (1) It is unlawful for any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, alley or highway in this state, to intentionally flee or attempt to elude any law enforcement officer, after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle to a stop.

(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection (b) that the attempted arrest was unlawful.

Therefore it would take someone that was learned in the law to intrept those laws as you can see, it is not cut and dry to the average citizen.

[t150vsuptpr]

An arrest for a crime which is supported by a warrant or probable cause as spelled out by law and made by an officer having jurisdiction to make such arrest is not an unlawful or illegal arrest, even if the charges are later found to be untrue or even supported by falsified or erronious information. Tha arrest is still proper and lawful.

An unlawful or illegal arrest is a different animal. An arrest made by an officer based on probable cause when he knows the PC is made up BS because he made it up ... or when a warrant is executed on a wrong residence when the warrant is clearly specifying the house across the street but the officers executing it just didn't take the time to look at the house numbers ... or when one is arrested on a hit which has not been confirmed and when in fact the warrant was executed weeks ago or the originating jurisdiction clearly stated no extradition ... or when an officer attempts to effect an arrest without properly identifying himself as an officer of the law (uniform, badge, etc). Those types of things are things that should not happen and they are examples of unlawful or illegal arrests that can leave an officer way out on a limb all alone if it hits the fan.

[speedygonzalez]

I was in New York City at the time of the Amadu Dialo assault. It really showed me how f----d up some cops are.

on another note, my father is currently an attorney and a former Special Prosecuter so he has seen a LOT of LE crime. Some of the more egregious examples include:

A bunch of drunk officers and firemen going on a joyride in a firetruck driving the wrong side down a highway paralyzing a motorist.

A Sheriff stealing government vehicles and attributing them to robberies

A Drug Enforcement officer at the impound "impounding" personally most of the drugs stored there

A detective ordering his officers to investigate his wife because he suspected she was having an affair

and other various types of corruption.

His advice to me is the following:

1. Comply with their commands and once the situation has calmed down demand to see identification. Or, if in the middle of an uncertain situation dial 911 and start listing everything you're seeing making sure that you mention your uncertainty of the identity of the assailants

2. Never, EVER, physically resist arrest(once you know they're police officers) the laws a courts are overwhelmingly LE favorable.

3. Keep your mouth shut and ask to speak to an attorney

One of the benefits of having a knowledgable attorney in the family is that you know that there will always be legal counsel willing to do whatever it takes on your behalf, the detriment is that the attorney always knows what shenanigans you've gotten yourself involved in.

[Bing_Oh]

Either you didn't listen very well when your attorney father explained what you should do in "these types of situations," or he gave you poor advice. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen an attorney get his client put in jail, of course...

1. Comply with their commands and once the situation has calmed down demand to see identification. Or, if in the middle of an uncertain situation dial 911 and start listing everything you're seeing making sure that you mention your uncertainty of the identity of the assailants
First and foremost, if I'm in uniform, you don't need to see any more identification from me. The uniform IS my identification. I had a bouncer at a bar try this on me one night, and he went to jail for obstruction. Secondly, when someone starts demanding anything from me on duty, they usually find that they don't get what they demand. As a police officer, I control the scene and those in it. Someone who attempts to seize that control from me will garner my full attention as a potential threat to my safety and to my ability to do my job.

2. Never, EVER, physically resist arrest(once you know they're police officers) the laws a courts are overwhelmingly LE favorable.
You're correct that a person should not resist arrest...in any way. Remember that "passive resistance" can still garner you a resisting arrest charge in most states. As for the courts being "overwhelmingly LE favorable," I don't know what state you live in, but I want to work there. Most courts and judges that I've delt with are extremely liberal and anti-LE.

3. Keep your mouth shut and ask to speak to an attorney
This is one of those great urban myths about the law and arrest...along with being an interesting advertisement for lawyers everywhere. Nowhere in the law does it say that any person who has been arrested has the right to a phone call and can call their lawyer. I don't have to let you contact an attorney unless I am questioning you after you have been arrested. I also don't have to read you your Miranda Rights unless I plan on questioning you subsequent to an arrest.

If you're going to give legal advise, Speedy, at least make it accurate legal advice.

[ProWriter]

I don't have to let you contact an attorney unless I am questioning you after you have been arrested.Isn't he still better off in the long run after incriminating himself if the record shows he first asked to speak with counsel, apart from whether or not you actually let him?

I also don't have to read you your Miranda Rights unless I plan on questioning you subsequent to an arrest.Isn't that alone a great reason to keep his mouth shut from the moment he's in custody, and even if you haven't Mirandized him? The advice to KYMS also protects him from incriminating himself voluntarily/spontaneously, before and after you read him his rights, as well as in direct response to any questioning afterwards.

[speedygonzalez]

I would only ask to see identification if somebody in plainclothes started identifying himself as an LEO

"I control the scene and those in it. Someone who attempts to seize that control from me will garner my full attention as a potential threat to my safety"

So, a person requesting(courteously) to see identification from a plainclothes policeman constitutes a potential threat?

"Most courts and judges that I've delt with are extremely liberal and anti-LE"

Come work in the Deep South, all the judges are are elected so they're all extremely conservative law and order, screw hippy civil liberties types.

A person under arrest should ALWAYS remain silent. Anything else you say can possibly incriminate you. Contrary to what many LEO's say, complying with questions can only make it harder on you, not easier. :D

[Mitchell_in_CT]

For a paralegal, you are badly misinformed.

You demand NOTHING from the cops at the sceen.

Do you really think the cop is going to get into an argument with you over his ID or his reasons for arresting you? Bullshi+.

At 2 in the morning, on a dark street, HE IS RIGHT...even if it turns out later that he is wrong.

Your recourse against wrongful arrest begins after you are in custody, and it is through The Court, not through resistance to the arrest.

As to plain clothes, I don't know were you are at, however, just on 2 minutes of research on the terms "plain clothes" near "arrest" I found STATE v. CASANOVA, 54 Conn. App. 714 (1999) 738 A.2d 668

"Both men were dressed in plain clothes but were identifiable as police officers because their badges, handcuffs and weapons were visible."

So, in CT, at least, Plain Clothes officers are identified in the above manner.

In addition, using the search terms "plain clothes" near "identify" we find STATE v. BROKAW, 32 Conn. App. 505 (1993) 629 A.2d 1170 which states:

"Convicted of the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, the defendant appealed to this
court claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence that he had dropped into a trash can while being pursued by police officers who sought to question
him. The three officers wore plain clothes and did not identify themselves or display any weapons as they approached the defendant in a bar. Held:
1. The trial court properly determined that the defendant was not seized within the meaning of the state and federal constitutions when he was
approached by the officers and dropped the bag containing the cocaine; under the circumstances here, a reasonable person would not have believed that he was not free to leave when he was approached."

and

" The record reveals the following facts. On December 21, 1990, at approximately 5:10 p.m., Detective Trevor Thorpe of the narcotics division of the Meriden police department received a telephone call from a confidential
informant. In the past, this informant's reliable
and accurate information had resulted in arrests
and seizures of narcotics. The informant told Thorpe that at approximately 5:30 p.m. the defendant would be in the Fontana DiCalabria bar possessing cocaine for sale, and that a truck belonging to the defendant's son would be outside. The informant also stated that he had purchased cocaine from the defendant in the bar on a regular basis, most recently within the prior two weeks.

On the basis of this information, Thorpe and two
other police officers went to the Fontana DiCalabria bar at 5:30 p.m. to investigate. After verifying that a truck parked in front of the bar, which matched the informant's description, belonged to the defendant's son and that the defendant was inside, the officers entered the bar. They wore plain clothes and did not identify themselves or display any weapons as they
approached the defendant to question him. When the defendant noticed the three officers approaching him, he turned to his left toward the kitchen to evade them. Simultaneously, the defendant pulled from his pocket a clear plastic bag containing what appeared to be narcotics.
The defendant fled into the nearby kitchen, pursued by the officers, and dropped the bag into a trash can. The police officers arrested the defendant and retrieved the plastic bag, which proved to contain cocaine."

Again, this case says that plain clothes police officers are identified by the gun, badge and handcuffs.

I would say that when you a plain clothes cop with a gun, badge and handcuffs orders you to do something or tries to take you into custody, you have seen his identification, and any further arguments you have with him can be taken up with a judge.

Why don't you go find you daddy's lexis research account and go do some research on the subject instead of pontificating from ignorance?

[speedygonzalez]

"For a paralegal, you are badly misinformed.

You demand NOTHING from the cops at the sceen.
"

Who said I was a paralegal?

if John Doe comes up to me claiming to be an LEO, I'm either seeing ID or calling 911

[Mitchell_in_CT]

oops.
Sorry, confused you for someone else.

My bad.

However, you see, you still run into a problem with your plan...

When the nice man with the gun sees you reaching into your pocket of for your belt line, a place were many people carry firearms...he will cease to be a nice man with a gun, and will then likely become a very agressive, mean spirited man with a gun who will show you the cool moves he learned in a police academy involving the subject of "defensive tatics" and introduce you to the ground in an abrupt and forceful manner.

That is if he doesn't use another skill he learned.

Marksmanship.

Going for your waistling or pockets is a "no-no".

So, how the hell were you going to call 911 if you can't get to your phone? Humm?

[speedygonzalez]

"When the nice man with the gun sees you reaching into your pocket of for your belt line, a place were many people carry firearms...he will cease to be a nice man with a gun, and will then likely become a very agressive, mean spirited man with a gun who will show you the cool moves he learned in a police academy involving the subject of "defensive tatics" and introduce you to the ground in an abrupt and forceful manner."


I am not going to be an idiot. At some point, I have right to reasonable self defense. If a plainclothes person comes up to me and identifies himself as an LEO, I'm not complying with anything else he says until I see ID or a badge. I'm not going to make any sudden moves to my belt, but rather calmly inform him that I am calling 911 because I doubt his authenticity. At this point I would suggest he call for backup as well.

No one should be stupid enough to follow the commands of a person claiming to be an LEO without showing a badge or id. Impersonating an officer is a felony.


If I am ever "introduced" to the ground in an abrupt and forceful manner while not resisting arrest, that LEO will get his *** sued. For injuries sustained, punitive damages, etc etc and that's only in civil court. Hell, if I really wanted to I could start a DOJ investigation on the entire PD.


as an aside, a recent Boston Globe Article noted that police officers were much more likely to stop minorities and search them for drugs even though whites actually carried more drugs.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

I am not going to be an idiot.


If I am ever "introduced" to the ground in an abrupt and forceful manner while not resisting arrest, that LEO will get his *** sued. For injuries sustained, punitive damages, etc etc and that's only in civil court. Hell, if I really wanted to I could start a DOJ investigation on the entire PD.



You aren't going to be an idiot? Good, then you will not have the problem with anyone.

:D

[FNA209]

If I am ever "introduced" to the ground in an abrupt and forceful manner while not resisting arrest, that LEO will get his *** sued. For injuries sustained, punitive damages, etc etc and that's only in civil court. Hell, if I really wanted to I could start a DOJ investigation on the entire PD.
.

Well, NOW I'm scared! Another "I'll sue you"/"I'll have your badge" threat.

Go ahead and do what you suggest in your posts, but here's the real world response-

You didn't comply with my orders.
You got bounced off the ground.
When all is said and done, I handled a threat to my safety.
I went home at the end of my shift.
You went to jail.

I'm sure Daddy will help bail you out of your trouble. But, I write a mean report, usually overflowing with plenty of very clear reasons explaining why I handled a situation in the manner I did.......

And I'm sure DOJ will jump right on your case. :rolleyes:

[GoldBadge]

Hell, if I really wanted to I could start a DOJ investigation on the entire PD.

LOL, yeah right. Any citizen who demands a DOJ (civil rights) investigation will get one just for the asking. You're a legend in your own mind.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Here are a couple of Tennessee statutes on the matter.

39-11-611. Self-defense.
......
(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

HOWEVER,

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search - Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.

(a) 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 such 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.

.......
HOWEVER,

39-16-603. Evading arrest.

.....
(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection (a) that the attempted arrest was unlawful.
.....
(b) (1) It is unlawful for any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, alley or highway in this state, to intentionally flee or attempt to elude any law enforcement officer, after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle to a stop.

(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this subsection (b) that the attempted arrest was unlawful.

Therefore it would take someone that was learned in the law to intrept those laws as you can see, it is not cut and dry to the average citizen.


Without having researched it, I'd say that "(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary." can be interpreted as you can fight back if when right off the bat, the officer kicks your balls into your throat without provocation in order to "restrain you" so that the Terry Frisk can be conducted.

If you can still stand after that happens...

I'd go with running very far and very fast, but that's just me...

[Nightshift va]

No gil is right, short of the broomhandle in the tail ofcourse that is unlawful and im sure exagerrated by the media, the advice he gave is right otherwise everyone who thinks they have been wronged{ which i dont know where u are a cop at but thats about everyone Ive arrested in 13years of LE }will "Resist" if told they can do so if it is an unlawful arrest". I think the spirit of the term unlawful are meant for cases such as life threating or serious injuring situations not because "you think its an unlawful arrest". ofcourse if you have a police inpersonator you fight back thats a nobrainer..But as far as we are here to "serve the people" you go on serving the people, I guess you are including people fighting you for your gun but our primary job is to enforce the laws, period and if you think a cop who tries to affect an arrest then has someone resist and has to use necessary force to enforce the law is a cop who thinks people need to serve them then you must be an administrator and not a street cop..

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Intresting that you mentioned impersonator.

If its a VW bug with yellow lights and a guy in a white shirt with a star shaped badge when you know that nobody in your area has a uniform like that, its one thing...

but according to the cases I've found for my area, "badge + gun + handcuffs = Cop" for plain clothes officer...so how are people supposed to know who is and is not legit?

Once an impersonator gets the cuffs on you, its game over and you have just become a serial killer victim statistic.

Intresting wrinkle, eh?