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

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT