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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT