ILNews

COA: Teen didn't resist law enforcement

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A teen who refused to stand up or pull up his pants when ordered by a police officer did not resist law enforcement, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In A.C. v. State of Indiana, 49A04-0912-JV-682, A.C. appealed his adjudication for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. Officer Richard Stratman was dispatched to the lobby regarding the recovery of a runaway juvenile. A.C. was in the lobby of an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department district headquarters with his mother.

A.C. didn’t answer Stratman’s questions, refused to stand up, and didn’t pull his pants up when asked. When the officer attempted to pull them up, A.C. pulled away a little and pulled down part of his pants. A.C. also leaned his weight and pulled away from Stratman’s grasp.

A.C. was committed to the Department of Correction but the juvenile court suspended the commitment and put him on probation.

The Court of Appeals delved into previous caselaw on forcible resistance, referencing Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 1993), Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009), and Colvin v. State, 916 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

The Graham court confirmed that it is error as a matter of law to conclude that “forcibly resists” includes all actions that are not passive. Graham refused to put his hands up and give his arms for cuffing. In Colvin, the appellate court noted that the officers testified that Colvin wasn’t complying with the officers’ commands and the officers had to use force to arrest Colvin. Colvin refused to take his hands out of his pockets. Neither case had sufficient evidence to show the defendants forcibly resisted officers.

“Here, there is even less evidence of forcible resistance than in either Graham or Colvin,” wrote Judge Terry Crone. “We observe that although A.C. did not stand up when asked, Officer Stratman pulled him to his feet without resistance. A.C.’s simple failure to stand, without more, amounts to passive inaction and seems analogous to the failure to present one’s arms for handcuffing, which our supreme court has said does not constitute forcible resistance.”

The judge also noted that leaning away and pulling down one’s pants don’t constitute forceful resistance to the performance of Stratman’s duties. Stratman never had to struggle to cuff A.C. or to get him to see medics for an arm injury.

“While A.C.’s conduct may have justified a physical response from the officer, that does not equate to criminal conduct as to A.C. under the supreme court’s current definition of resisting law enforcement,” wrote Judge Crone.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT