Resisting an Officer (w/ or w/out Violence)
RESISTING ARREST (WITH, OR WITHOUT VIOLENCE)
I hate to say this, but the truth must come out. If you've been charged with Resisting an Officer Without Violence, chances are your arrest was not a pleasant experience (you may have even visited a hospital for your injuries). Not obeying the lawful command of a law enforcement officer can turn into a night in jail on a misdemeanor arrest for Resisting an Officer Without Violence. Or, there's a felony version for resisting with violence, in other words, "physically resisting" an officer's lawful command. Thus, resisting charges come in two types, felony "with" violence and misdemeanor "without" violence.
DEFINING RESISTING
Often, the misdemeanor resisting without violence is simply a failure to obey the lawful command of an officer. Such a charge can also take the form of lying to police officers. Sometimes, it's ok to lie, sometimes it's a crime. For example, in Burdess v. State, 724 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) the appellate court reversed a conviction for resisting officer without violence where defendant gave the officer a false name but no reports were prepared based on it, nor was any action taken in reliance on it, and information was corrected before it did any harm.
One of the best ways to discover how a criminal charge works is to view the statute, section 843.02, and the jury instruction. Starting with the misdemeanor Resisting an Officer Without Violence, in order for the State to prove this case three (3) elements must each be proven beyond every reasonable doubt:
1) The Defendant resisted/obstructed/opposed the victim
2) At the time, the victim was engaged in the execution of legal process or the lawful execution of a legal duty, and
3) At the time the victim was an officer.
If the charge is a felony Resisting an Officer With Violence, section 2) and 3) remain the same, but section 1) changes as follows:
1) Defendant knowingly and willfully resisted/obstructed/opposed victim by [offering to do him violence][doing violence to him].
OFFICER ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL DUTY?
All resisting charges require the officer to be engaged in a lawful duty. Most often, this issue arises out of police investigations, whereby they request a citizen to answer a few questions, and when that citizen walks away and refuses, out come the handcuffs and a resisting an officer without violence charge. Consider the case of DAVIS V. STATE, 973 So. 2d 1277, where officers responded to a 'suspicious incident' complaint from employees of a restaurant. When officers arrived, the employees claimed that defendant Davis was involved in the incident--but they never presented evidence of the actual incident! Davis refuses to cooperate, walks away, and gets arrested. The appellate court overturned the conviction because there was no evidence the police were engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when they initially detained Davis. The police didn't really know what they responded to at the restaurant. Thus, this type of resisting charge requires that the officers have a reasonable founded suspicion of criminal activity, mere hunches are not enough, and a citizen should be able to walk away without being arrested!
So, what is reasonable suspicion? A reasonable suspicion is “a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge.” McMaster v. State, 780 So.2d 1026, 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “Reasonable suspicion” is a less demanding standard than probable cause, and the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for stopping a citizen. An officer must be able to articulate more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' ” of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).
There are plenty more issues surrounding resisting charges, so if you've been arrested for resisting an officer, you should give criminal defense attorney John Guidry a call for a free analysis of your situation. You have no money to lose, just a few minutes on your cell phone, that's it. What a bargain! By the way, our law firm's phone number is 407.423.1117.
I hate to say this, but the truth must come out. If you've been charged with Resisting an Officer Without Violence, chances are your arrest was not a pleasant experience (you may have even visited a hospital for your injuries). Not obeying the lawful command of a law enforcement officer can turn into a night in jail on a misdemeanor arrest for Resisting an Officer Without Violence. Or, there's a felony version for resisting with violence, in other words, "physically resisting" an officer's lawful command. Thus, resisting charges come in two types, felony "with" violence and misdemeanor "without" violence.
DEFINING RESISTING
Often, the misdemeanor resisting without violence is simply a failure to obey the lawful command of an officer. Such a charge can also take the form of lying to police officers. Sometimes, it's ok to lie, sometimes it's a crime. For example, in Burdess v. State, 724 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) the appellate court reversed a conviction for resisting officer without violence where defendant gave the officer a false name but no reports were prepared based on it, nor was any action taken in reliance on it, and information was corrected before it did any harm.
One of the best ways to discover how a criminal charge works is to view the statute, section 843.02, and the jury instruction. Starting with the misdemeanor Resisting an Officer Without Violence, in order for the State to prove this case three (3) elements must each be proven beyond every reasonable doubt:
1) The Defendant resisted/obstructed/opposed the victim
2) At the time, the victim was engaged in the execution of legal process or the lawful execution of a legal duty, and
3) At the time the victim was an officer.
If the charge is a felony Resisting an Officer With Violence, section 2) and 3) remain the same, but section 1) changes as follows:
1) Defendant knowingly and willfully resisted/obstructed/opposed victim by [offering to do him violence][doing violence to him].
OFFICER ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL DUTY?
All resisting charges require the officer to be engaged in a lawful duty. Most often, this issue arises out of police investigations, whereby they request a citizen to answer a few questions, and when that citizen walks away and refuses, out come the handcuffs and a resisting an officer without violence charge. Consider the case of DAVIS V. STATE, 973 So. 2d 1277, where officers responded to a 'suspicious incident' complaint from employees of a restaurant. When officers arrived, the employees claimed that defendant Davis was involved in the incident--but they never presented evidence of the actual incident! Davis refuses to cooperate, walks away, and gets arrested. The appellate court overturned the conviction because there was no evidence the police were engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty when they initially detained Davis. The police didn't really know what they responded to at the restaurant. Thus, this type of resisting charge requires that the officers have a reasonable founded suspicion of criminal activity, mere hunches are not enough, and a citizen should be able to walk away without being arrested!
So, what is reasonable suspicion? A reasonable suspicion is “a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge.” McMaster v. State, 780 So.2d 1026, 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “Reasonable suspicion” is a less demanding standard than probable cause, and the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for stopping a citizen. An officer must be able to articulate more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' ” of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).
There are plenty more issues surrounding resisting charges, so if you've been arrested for resisting an officer, you should give criminal defense attorney John Guidry a call for a free analysis of your situation. You have no money to lose, just a few minutes on your cell phone, that's it. What a bargain! By the way, our law firm's phone number is 407.423.1117.