Resisting illegal arrest?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LE contacts....

It's important when dealing with any PD or LE officer/special agent to get the case #, report #, badge/ID # of the officer/officers & if possible, the vehicle tag #/license # of the LE vehicle.

The formal IA complaint form I got asked for a vehicle tag #. ;)
Officers & supervisors know that 911 calls/phone calls are date-time stamped. They are also recorded & transcripts can be provided. :D

As noted in other forum topics too, a smart phone or DV system is handy. Video & audio recordings can augment your case.
note; keep in mind, some states have privacy laws & recording someone may be against the law. You might be subject to criminal & civil actions.
 
Jim March said:
How does one know that the arrest is actually illegal at the time?

http://carlosmiller.com/

There are dozens, probably over a hundred over the years, documented on that website. And they're the ones that are caught on film.
First, I can't get your link to work.

Second, there is a big difference between an arrest that was lawful, but the subject was exonerated, and an unlawful arrest.

Third, who is calling the arrest unlawful makes a big difference. It's one thing when a judge calls the arrest unlawful. It's another thing entirely when the guy arrested calls it unlawful.
 
Dangit, it's down for the moment. Should be up soon, it's a major, major well known blog - reports mainly about people getting arrested for pointing a camera at cops, who hate that despite it being a well-established 1st Amendment right.
 
OK, it's back. This is the best recently documented case:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...rged-destroying-evidence-confiscating-camera/

Several officers fired over this one, major lawsuit. Basics: cops attack somebody, somebody else films it, cops attack that cameraman chasing him inside his home and attacking everybody in the house, destroying that camera and making multiple false arrests. Whoops...turns out the cops missed yet another cameraman who catches the whole thing.

Here's another good one:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...footage-survives-despite-camera-confiscation/

Total false arrest for daring to film them doing another false arrest. But they screwed up - turns out the gal with the camera wasn't just locally recording, she was live-streaming to a separate website over her camera's 4G data connection. This is an increasing problem for the cops - doesn't help to grab and smash (or delete) a cellphone camera if it was live-streaming. Expect a lawsuit out of this one.

Others of interest:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...imanded-internal-affairs-arrest-pinac-editor/ - this false arrest was declared false by the officer's own department.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...-federal-courthouse-violating-federal-policy/

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...rding-pointing-sign-allowing-video-recording/

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...eputy-trial-stealing-phone-citizen-recording/ - this one is interesting because we have a cop committing strongarm robbery, not just a false arrest. Do we defend against that? What happens if we do?

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...ers-man-camera-county-property-threat-arrest/

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...fs-attorney-plans-join-us-right-record-panel/

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/12/26/kansas-cops-bully-man-arrest-trying-record/

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/01/03/kansas-cops-continue-harass-kid-camera/

...and on and on and on and on.
 
Isn't a police state where they arrest the people without due cause. If you were in an area where this was happening wouldn't you resist. Lets say the police were kicking in doors and confiscating weapons. Would you resist?
 
Isn't a police state where they arrest the people without due cause
That's a wholly different scenario. If we were in a police state, the Constitution would not apply, due process would be suspended, and the courts would be unresponsive. We're not there. Not even close.
 
In my state, there there is a specific statute addressing this issue. I believe this portion of Kentucky's law was based on the Model Penal Code so that a number of states may have nearly identical statutes. The below is part of the statutes dealing with the authorization to use physical force for self-defense:
Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when: (1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or . . .
Ky.Rev.Stat. § 503.060.. I would be very surprised if any state did not have a similar statute or common law interpretation. Note the qualification that the police are using "no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest." Simply put, the remedy for an unlawful arrest is to sue in court and, perhaps, file an internal affairs complaint.

I'll also add that I looked at the link at http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm. I would not rely on any of that. I just checked a couple of citations and they were old cases (note the site did not follow normal citation format and include the dates). They may also apply to very strict circumstances. For example John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529, which is a 1900 case, dealt with a person who had no authority as a police officer, not a police officer making an arrest that was unlawful; e.g., lack of probable cause.
 
Last edited:
KyJim said:
In my state, there there is a specific statute addressing this issue. I believe this portion of Kentucky's law was based on the Model Penal Code so that a number of states may have nearly identical statutes. The below is part of the statutes dealing with the authorization to use physical force for self-defense:
The emphasis is mine, not KyJim's. He's right, at least in regards to Arkansas:
Arkansas General Assembly said:
(a)(1) A person commits the offense of resisting arrest if he or she knowingly resists a person known by him or her to be a law enforcement officer effecting an arrest.

(2) As used in this subsection, “resists” means using or threatening to use physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person.

(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest if the law enforcement officer was acting under color of his or her official authority.

(4) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeanor.

(b)(1) A person commits the offense of refusal to submit to arrest if he or she knowingly refuses to submit to arrest by a person known by him or her to be a law enforcement officer effecting an arrest.

(2) As used in this subsection, “refuses” means active or passive refusal.

(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer lacked legal authority to make the the arrest if the law enforcement officer was acting under color of his or her official authority.

(4) Refusal to submit to arrest is a Class B misdemeanor.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-103 (West)
Emphasis supplied.
 
In Massachusetts it is illegal to resist arrest even if the arrest is unlawful, M.G.L. Ch. 268 32b. The only time one is permitted to resist is when there is excessive use of force.

"2. Unlawful arrest not a defense. It is not a defense to this charge
that a police officer was attempting to make an arrest which was
unlawful, if the officer was acting under color of his (her) official
authority and used only reasonable force in attempting to make
the arrest"


Why complicate the incident. You may very well be violating a law or ordinance you weren't aware of and you could turn your minor violation into a jailable offense.
 
I have to say, my reasoning doesn't even get me to the legal or illegal question. My thinking starts out as "Is this action likely to get me dead?" The answer is yes, so I stop there. End Script. Only if the answer is no does the script continue to "Is it legal?", "Is it wise?", etc.

Interestingly enough, the answers to those secondary questions are ALL "NO!", so what's really the point?

Legality is like the 3rd or 4th question. It's not even relevant. It's likely to get you killed and, if it doesn't, there are much better ways to handle the situation so who cares if it's legal. Don't do dumb things that will get you killed, legal or not!
 
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:


(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
 
I have to say, my reasoning doesn't even get me to the legal or illegal question. My thinking starts out as "Is this action likely to get me dead?" The answer is yes, so I stop there. End Script. Only if the answer is no does the script continue to "Is it legal?", "Is it wise?", etc.

My sentiments exactly.

If I am being illegally detained or arrested, I want to give a courtroom jury the chance to decide my fate rather then some possibly trigger happy cop being judge, jury and sentencing me out there on the street in a matter of minutes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top