ILNews

Clenched fist and aggressive behavior merit resisting law enforcement conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court acknowledged that precedent does not provide a clear definition of “resisting arrest,” but still the court knew it when it saw it in a case where a man was subdued with a Taser after ignoring a police officer’s order to get down on the ground.  

Demetrius Walker appealed his conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor, arguing the evidence was insufficient.

He was arguing with another man in the middle of an intersection when Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jason Ehret arrived at the scene and ordered both individuals to lay down. The pair continued to argue and began hitting each other.

After Ehret warned he would use his Taser if they did not comply, the man Walker was arguing with dropped to the ground. However, Walker began walking towards Ehret “in an aggressive manner” with his fists clenched. Ehret continued to warn Walker, and he eventually used the Taser to subdue him.  

The Supreme Court noted not every response to police rises to the level of resisting law enforcement. But “forcibly” resisting, obstructing or interfering, even with only modest exertion of strength and without physical contact, does meet the threshold.

In Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1312-CR-804, the Supreme Court found Walker’s actions of ignoring Ehret’s repeated warnings and advancing to near striking distance with fists clenched was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
 
Walker argued his actions did not constitute resistance to law enforcement. He did not display a weapon and there was no evidence of any aggressive behavior directed at the officer.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held Walker’s fists were weapons. Also the evidence did not indicate to whom Walker’s aggression was aimed and why his fists were clenched.

“And as for his argument that he showed no evidence of ‘purposefully aggressive behavior in defiance of arrest,’ we note first the statute does not require his action to specifically be ‘in defiance of arrest,’ only a forcible resistance, obstruction, or interference with Officer Ehret’s execution of his duties,” Justice Steven David wrote for the court. “And second, if advancing in an aggressive manner and with fist clenched to within three or four feet of the only police officer on the scene, who has been ordering you to the ground, is not at least ‘purposefully aggressive behavior,’ then we are not clear what conduct might ever merit such a label.”
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT