Case Name: PEOPLE v. DILLARD
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1982-04-23
Citations: 115 Mich. App. 640
Docket Number: Docket No. 56038
Parties: PEOPLE v DILLARD
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and Bashara and M. R. Knoblock, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 115
Pages: 640–646

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v DILLARD
Docket No. 56038.
Submitted November 5, 1981, at Grand Rapids.
Decided April 23, 1982.
Roger Dillard pled guilty to a charge of felonious assault, Calhoun Circuit Court, Stanley Everett, J. He appeals, contending that the alleged assault occurred while he was defending himself from an unlawful arrest and that his actions could not constitute a felonious assault. He, therefore, claims that he was improperly bound over to circuit court without the corpus delicti of felonious assault having been established and that a factual basis was not sufficiently established to support his guilty plea. Held:
1. The arrest of the defendant in his home was illegal. No warrant was procured, defendant did not consent to the officers’ entry and no exigent circumstances were present.
2. Defendant’s actions in defending himself from an unlawful arrest were reasonably necessary under the circumstances. His response did not involve the actual use of force.
Reversed.
M. R. Knoblock, J., dissented. He would hold that the defendant’s actions cannot be characterized as reasonable as a matter of law. The threatened use of deadly force is not a reasonable means of resisting an unlawful arrest where the actor perceives no danger other than temporary loss of liberty. He would affirm.
Opinion op the Court
1. Arrest — Resistance to Arrest — Unlawful Arrest.
A person may use such force as is reasonably necessary to resist an unlawful arrest.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest § 94.
Modern status of rules as to right to forcefully resist illegal arrest. 44 ALR3d 1078.
68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures §§ 37, 44, 46.
Validity, under Federal Constitution, of consent to search — Supreme Court cases. 36 L Ed 2d 1143.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 103.
Dissent by M. R. Knoblock, J.
2. Arrest — Constitutional Law — Consent — Exigent Circumstances.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a warrantless entry into a private home to make a felony arrest where the homeowner has not given his consent or where exigent circumstances are not present (US Const, Am TV).
3. Arrest — Resistance to Arrest — Deadly Force — Unlawful Arrest.
The threatened use of deadly force does not constitute a reasonable means of resisting an unlawful arrest as a matter of law where the actor perceives no danger other than the temporary loss of his liberty.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, Conrad J. Sindt, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kenneth G. Walters, Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Susan J. Smith, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and Bashara and M. R. Knoblock, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The majority accepts the statement of facts provided by Judge Knoblock in his dissenting opinion.
The arrest of defendant in his home after a warrantless entry by police officers was illegal. Defendant did not consent to the entry, nor were exigent circumstances present. Payton v New York, 445 US 573; 100 S Ct 1371; 63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980).
Defendant had a right to defend himself in resisting the unlawful arrest so long as the force used was reasonably necessary. People v Krum, 374 Mich 356; 132 NW2d 69 (1965), cert den 381 US 935; 85 S Ct 1765; 14 L Ed 2d 699 (1965); Delude v Raasakka, 42 Mich App 665, 672; 202 NW2d 508 (1972).
Under the facts of this case, we find that defendant's actions in self-defense were reasonable. His response to the illegal entry into his home did not involve the actual use of force. There was no harm or injury done to the parties involved. This case is clearly distinguishable from People v Eisenberg, 72 Mich App 106, 110; 249 NW2d 313 (1976), lv den 401 Mich 803 (1977), wherein defendant's use of deadly force, in firing at and wounding one of the intruding police officers, was found to be unreasonable.
Had defendant actually used deadly force in the instant case, his response may have gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness. However, because his defense involved the use of no force whatever, his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. We, therefore, reverse defendant's conviction of felonious assault.
Reversed.