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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT