Resisting Arrest

The mental state of the defendant is the critical battlefield. The statute generally requires willfulness, meaning the resistance was a conscious choice. We argue that involuntary physical reactions do not constitute willfulness.

For example, if an officer twists a suspect’s arm and the suspect pulls away due to a reflex of pain, that is not a criminal act of resistance. It is a biological response. We meticulously analyze the physical dynamics of the arrest to demonstrate that our client’s movements were defensive or reflexive rather than an intentional attempt to impede the officer.

A defendant cannot resist an arrest if they do not know they are being arrested by a law enforcement officer. This issue frequently arises in cases involving plainclothes officers or chaotic crowd situations where the officer fails to identify themselves clearly.

If an undercover officer grabs an individual without announcing their authority, the individual has a right to defend themselves against what appears to be a civilian assault. We demand proof that the officer provided adequate notice of their status and intent, arguing that any struggle was a reasonable misunderstanding rather than criminal defiance.

The officer must be engaged in the performance of their lawful duties for the charge to stick. This means that if the officer was acting outside the scope of their authority or engaging in police misconduct, the resistance might be legally justified.

While many jurisdictions have modified the common law rule allowing citizens to resist unlawful arrest, the officer still must be acting under the color of law. We scrutinize the officer’s conduct prior to the arrest. If they were harassing the defendant or conducting an illegal search, we argue that they had stepped outside their lawful duty, rendering the resisting charge invalid.

The proliferation of body-worn cameras has revolutionized the defense of these cases. We do not rely on the police report, which is often a sanitized version of events written to protect the officer.

We obtain the raw footage and analyze it frame by frame. We look for discrepancies between the report and the video. Often, the video reveals that the officer escalated the situation immediately or that the defendant was complying when force was applied. We use this objective evidence to impeach the officer’s credibility on the stand, showing the jury that the only aggression present came from the badge, not the citizen.

While generally one cannot resist a lawful arrest, an exception exists when an officer uses excessive or lethal force. If an officer begins to beat a suspect who is already handcuffed or complying, the suspect retains a right to self-defense to protect their life.

This is a high-stakes affirmative defense. We must prove that the force used by the officer was unreasonable and that the defendant’s reaction was a necessary measure to prevent serious bodily injury. We employ use-of-force experts to testify that the officer’s actions violated standard police training, thereby legitimizing our client’s defensive actions.

The nature of the injuries is often the most telling evidence. If a defendant is charged with violently resisting but the officer has no injuries while the defendant has a concussion and broken ribs, the physical evidence contradicts the charge.

We subpoena medical records and hire forensic medical experts to interpret the wounds. We demonstrate that the injuries are consistent with defensive posturing, such as bruises on the back of the arms, rather than offensive striking. This forensic approach scientifically dismantles the claim that the defendant was the aggressor.

To elevate the charge to a felony, the state typically must prove that the defendant used force or violence against the officer, or that the resistance created a substantial risk of death or serious injury. This often involves allegations of striking, kicking or reaching for the officer’s weapon.

We challenge the definition of force. Pulling one’s arm away or going limp is passive resistance, which should never be charged as a felony. We hold the prosecution to the strict letter of the law, ensuring that passive non-compliance is not exaggerated into felony violence.

If a weapon is involved, the stakes escalate immediately. However, mere possession of a weapon is different from using it. If a defendant had a pocketknife in their pocket but never reached for it, the prosecution may still attempt to charge armed resistance.

We argue that without an overt act to employ the weapon, its presence is irrelevant to the resisting charge. We carefully distinguish between possession and use, preventing the prejudice of the weapon from tainting the jury’s perception of the resistance.

An injury to the officer is often the trigger for a felony charge. Yet, the law distinguishes between injuries caused by the defendant and injuries that are incidental to the arrest.

If an officer trips and falls while chasing a suspect, or hurts their hand while punching a suspect, that is not an injury caused by the defendant’s violence. We investigate the causation of every scrape and bruise claimed by the officer. By proving the injuries were self-inflicted or accidental, we can knock the charge down from a felony to a misdemeanor or get it dismissed entirely.

In many jurisdictions, a citizen cannot be convicted of resisting arrest if the arrest itself was unlawful. This requires a rigorous analysis of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

We file motions to suppress evidence, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to initiate the arrest. If the judge rules that the initial detention was illegal, the subsequent resisting charge often fails because the officer was not in the performance of a lawful duty. This technical legal defense is often the most effective way to dispose of the case before it ever reaches a jury.

A person cannot be punished for failing to do the impossible. We frequently represent clients who were physically unable to comply with the officer’s conflicting or rapid-fire commands.

If an officer yells at a suspect to get on the ground while simultaneously holding them up against a wall, compliance is impossible. Similarly, if a client has a physical disability or hearing impairment that prevented them from understanding or performing the command, we present medical evidence to prove inability. We argue that the failure to comply was a physical reality, not a willful choice.

Yelling at an officer, criticizing their conduct or asking for a badge number is protected speech under the First Amendment. It is not resisting arrest.

However, officers often arrest individuals for verbal contempt and charge it as resistance. We vigorously defend the right to speak. We argue that verbal dissent, no matter how loud or profane, does not constitute the physical obstruction required for the crime. We ensure the jury understands that being rude to a police officer is not a crime in a free society.

Bystander video is often more valuable than body cam footage because it provides a different angle and includes the moments leading up to the arrest that the officer might not have recorded.

We actively seek out witnesses who filmed the encounter. We understand how to authenticate this footage and introduce it into evidence. Often, this footage captures the officer’s aggressive demeanor or the defendant’s attempts to surrender, directly refuting the police report.

Resistance charges often turn on what was said. We analyze the audio to determine if the officer issued clear, audible commands before using force.

If the audio reveals that the officer struck the defendant before giving a command, the resistance argument fails. We also use audio to prove that the defendant was asking for clarification or expressing confusion, which negates the element of willful defiance. Transcribing these chaotic moments is essential to showing the jury the truth.

We also investigate the digital footprint of the involved officers. In some cases, officers have a history of posting aggressive content on social media or have a record of similar complaints.

While this evidence is harder to admit, it helps us build a profile of the officer for cross-examination. We use this background information to contextualize the officer’s behavior, suggesting a pattern of aggression and bias that supports our client’s version of events.