ILNews

Inside the Criminal Case: Passive vs. forcible resistance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Inside CC Bell GaerteThe Court of Appeals recently brought us the story of a woman, her dog and her not-so Gandhi-like attempt at passive resistance when her dogs were investigated for biting. The question before the Court of Appeals was whether this passive resistance was criminal.

Maddox Macy was a dog owner. Macy v. State, No. 52A02-1309-CR-808, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 221 at *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. May 22, 2014). When Macy’s neighbor complained that Macy’s dogs had bitten someone, two animal control officers, assisted by a police officer, were assigned to investigate the complaint. Id. at *1-2. Not surprisingly, when they arrived, the officers found Macy “aloof” and “not in the mood to cooperate.”Id. at *2. Therefore, they left Macy’s house to ask the neighbor about the purported incident. Id. Displeased, Macy followed the officers while shouting that her dogs hadn’t bitten anyone and “demanding answers” from the officers. Id.

After disregarding the officer’s request to calm down, the police officer placed Macy in handcuffs and sat her in the front seat of his police car, shutting the door. Id. at *3. Handcuffed but undeterred, Macy somehow opened the door to the officer’s car, got out and continued to demand answers. Id. The officer re-engaged Macy and asked her to get back into the car. Id. She refused, so the officer “had to force” her into the car. Id. In response, Macy placed her feet on the ground outside of the vehicle, compelling the officer to pick her feet up in order to shut the car’s door. Id. At trial, the court concluded that the act of Macy “stiffening up” did not constitute resisting law enforcement but that getting out of the police car was sufficient to determine that she was guilty of the same. Id. at *3-4.

On appeal, Macy claimed there was insufficient evidence that she was guilty of resisting law enforcement because she did not forcibly resist. Id. at *1. Indiana Code 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) provides that it is a crime when an individual “forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer.” The state argued that Macy forcibly resisted both when she opened the officer’s car door and when she rested her feet outside of the car requiring the officers to physically pick them up in order to get them through the door. Id. at *7. The state also argued that “forcible resistance . . . may be reasonably inferred based on (the officer’s) testimony that he had to ‘force’ Macy back into the car.” Id. at *9 (parenthesis added).

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the “line between what is and is not forcible resistance is blurry to say the least.” Id. at *6. The court emphasized that an individual’s resistance must be more than passive and must, “at a minimum, (involve) some physical interaction with a law enforcement officer.” Id. at *6, 9 (parenthesis added). Because Macy’s actions were not directed at the officers, and the officer wasn’t near his car when she opened its door, the court concluded that this action could not constitute forcible resistance. Id. at *8-9. Addressing the state’s contention that Macy’s placement of her feet outside of the car constituted impermissible force, the court found that she had merely passively resisted and that this was insufficient to constitute the forcible resistance. Id. at *10-11. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that “an officer’s force does not establish that the defendant forcibly resisted.” Id. at *9. Macy’s conviction for resisting law enforcement was therefore reversed. Id.

In our eyes, it is a relief that it is the defendant’s use of force – and not the officer’s use of force – that dictates whether an individual is guilty of resisting law enforcement. If the law was expanded to allow the officer’s use of force to determine who was “resisting,” then theoretically, one would be guilty of “resisting” every time an officer:

• Threw someone onto the hood of a squad car,

• Hit someone in the knee cap with a billy-club or

• Tazed someone.

Just in case you ever find yourself on the game show “Resist, Not Resist,” you should probably know that the following conduct also does not constitute resisting:

• Walking away from a law-enforcement encounter,

• Leaning away from an officer’s grasp or

• Twisting and turning “a little bit.”

K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013). On the other hand, “mayhem” or directing strength, power or violence toward an officer would be considered resisting. Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 956 (Ind. 2009); Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723-4 (Ind. 1993).

Regardless of your confidence in navigating the “blurred lines” of these laws, if you find yourself leaving a watering hole late at night and encounter a police officer, you should probably just greet the officer with a polite “Good evening, kind sir” rather than an “aloof” or uncooperative “demand” for answers. That demand could lead to the not-so-warm embrace of an officer and you could find yourself with problems after “twisting and turning” more than “a little bit.”•

__________

James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached at jbell@bgdlegal.com or mgaerte@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT