IC § 35-44.1-3-1. Resisting law enforcement.
(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer’s siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The offense under subsection (a) is a:
(1) Level 6 felony if:
(A) the offense is described in subsection (a)(3) and the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense; or
(B) while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person draws or uses a deadly weapon, inflicts bodily injury on or otherwise causes bodily injury to another person, or operates a vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person;
(2) Level 5 felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes serious bodily injury to another person;
(3) Level 3 felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of another person; and
(4) Level 2 felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of a law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is engaged in the officer’s official duties.
(c) If a person uses a vehicle to commit a felony offense under subsection (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4), as part of the criminal penalty imposed for the offense, the court shall impose a minimum executed sentence of at least:
(1) thirty (30) days, if the person does not have a prior unrelated conviction under this section;
(2) one hundred eighty (180) days, if the person has one (1) prior unrelated conviction under this section; or
(3) one (1) year, if the person has two (2) or more prior unrelated convictions under this section.
(d) Notwithstanding IC 35-50-2-2.2 and IC 35-50-3-1, the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under subsection (c) may not be suspended.
(e) If a person is convicted of an offense involving the use of a motor vehicle under:
(1) subsection (b)(1)(A), if the person exceeded the speed limit by at least twenty (20) miles per hour while committing the offense;
(2) subsection (b)(2); or
(3) subsection (b)(3);
the court may notify the bureau of motor vehicles to suspend or revoke the person’s driver’s license and all certificates of registration and license plates issued or registered in the person’s name in accordance with IC 9-30-4-6(b)(3) for the period described in IC 9-30-4-6(d)(4) or IC 9-30-4-6(d)(5). The court shall inform the bureau whether the person has been sentenced to a term of incarceration. At the time of conviction, the court may obtain the person’s current driver’s license and return the license to the bureau of motor vehicles.
(f) A person may not be charged or convicted of a crime under subsection (a)(3) if the law enforcement officer is a school resource officer acting in the officer’s capacity as a school resource officer.
– Most of the resist cases that you deal with are simple misdemeanor cases, resist by force or resist by flight.
– Sometimes you will get resist by flight in a vehicle. These are generally not high speed chases. In the majority of resist by flight with a vehicle cases, the defendant actually drives very slowly and for a very short distance, maybe just a few blocks. This is normally because the individual is trying to hide or swallow drugs and is just trying to buy some time before the stop.
– At common law, resisting arrest cases (either by flight or by force), could be fought on the grounds that the underlying arrest was illegal. This defense has been chipped away at, but has not been eliminated.
Who Qualifies as a Law Enforcement Officer
– For purposes of resisting law enforcement, a law enforcement officer includes an alcoholic beverage enforcement officer and a conservation officer of the department of natural resources. Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind. App. 1995) (decided under former IC 35-44-3-3).
– Where defendant was arrested by park ranger, his conviction for resisting law enforcement was vacated because IC 9-13-2-92, IC 35-41-1-17 and IC 14-9-8-1, all of which define law enforcement officer, do not include park ranger, indicating that park ranger is not law enforcement officer as matter of law. Walker v. State, 813 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. App. 2004) (decided under former IC 35-44-3-3).
– There was sufficient evidence that officer was police officer to support conviction of defendant for resisting law enforcement; although officer was working off-duty security at time of incident, officer was trained as police officer and had been police officer for 10 years. Harris v. State, 831 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. App. 2005) (decided under former IC 35-44-3-3).
– In a case involving resisting a law enforcement officer, due to a reluctance to blur the fine U.S. Const., amend. IV line between school discipline and law enforcement duties by allowing the same officer to switch hats between a disciplinary role allowing a warrantless search and then to a law enforcement role in making an arrest, it was suggested that the Indiana Legislature consider expanding IC 35-44.1-3-1 to apply to forcible resistance, obstruction, or interference with a law enforcement, school liaison, or school resource officer or to a person assisting the officer while the officer was engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties. K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2013).
When Can You Resist?
– Defendant had a privilege to resist the officer where the force the officer used against defendant was objectively unreasonable and unconstitutionally excessive. Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, (Ind. App. 2000). (decided under former IC 35-44-3-3).
– There are circumstances where unlawful warrantless instrusion into the home creates a privilege to resist, and punishment of such resistance is therefore improper. Although the common law right to resist arrests in public places has been abrogated, the right to offer reasonable resistance to an unlawful entry has not. Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, (Ind. App. 1985).
– Although a citizen had the right to resist an unlawful entry by police into his home, the warrantless entry by deputy was justified by exigent circumstances. Alspach v. State, 755 N.E.2d 209, (Ind. App. 2001) (decided under former IC 35-44-3-3).
– Right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment, U.S. Const., amend. IV, jurisprudence. Therefore, a trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on such in a resisting arrest case, and sufficient evidence supported defendant’s convictions for resisting arrest and battery on a law enforcement officer since defendant did not dispute his struggle with officers or that he shoved an officer attempting to enter an apartment. This case got a lot of media attention, and Judges are mindful of that. Opponents of the decision pointed out that under this ruling, no matter what the facts are, any illegal entry into a home by a police officer can not be interfered with.Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 2011) (decided under former IC 35-44-3-3).
DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
Mr cardella, was by far the best attorney, I’ve ever had, or dealt with my entire life.the communication is 2nd to none. I’ve had many attorneys thru my life for various needs and this was by far the easiest process I’ve had. These days most attorneys you have to call several times and when u reach or see them they seem to not pay attention to you or what you want, Jeff is not like the rest. Definitely hire Jeff cardella!!!
I found Jeff to be an excellent attorney. He is very reasonable and level headed, empathetic but not a pushover. He always answered our questions directly. Hiring him was a great decision. Highly recommend and would use his services again.
Jeff demonstrated a great moral and positive character while working on my nephew’s case. He communicated promptly with my family as the case progressed and was easily accessible. We appreciated his honesty regarding the different scenarios and possible outcomes of the case. We were honor to have him as our attorney. Please do not hesitate to retain him, he will work diligently on your family behalf. We respected the fact he does a lot of the leg work himself.
I was thoroughly impressed with the service at Jeff Cardella Law Offices. One of the things that distinguished Mr. Cardella from some of the other law practices that I called was the level of care and customer service that was attached to our conversation. I called expecting to speak to a receptionist and was connected directly to him. Mr. Cardella took a true consultative approach to make sure that my needs was addressed specifically to my situation. I highly recommend giving the Cardella office a call.
My experience with Mr. Jeff Cardella was a positive experience since our first consult. He was reassuring and very reliable. I would recommend his services to everyone!
Great experience, helped me beat an undeserved ticket and allowed me to focus my time on my studies instead of dealing with it all myself. Would recommend to anyone.