Opinion ID: 2630649
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ruling of the court of appeals

Text: ¶ 5 Pena-Flores appealed his subsequent conviction for interfering, claiming that the trial court had misinterpreted the interfering statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-305. See American Fork City v. Pena-Flores, 2000 UT App 323, 14 P.3d 698. Pena-Flores argued that the statutory seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention language applies only if the arrest or detention is ultimately found to be lawful. Pena-Flores claimed that the detentions of the gang members were unlawful because they were not supported by reasonable suspicion and that his conviction should be accordingly overturned. ¶ 6 The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that [s]o long as a police officer is acting within the scope of his or her authority and the detention or arrest has the indicia of being lawful, a person can be guilty of interfering with a peace officer even when the arrest or detention is later determined to be unlawful. Id. at ¶ 11. The court of appeals determined, based on our ruling in State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568 (Utah 1991), and the plain language of section 76-8-305, that Pena-Flores' interpretation requiring that the underlying arrest or detention be lawful reads out of the statute the phrase `seeking to effect.' Pena-Flores, 2000 UT App 323 at ¶ 16, 14 P.3d 698. The court of appeals concluded that the statute is intended to protect law enforcement officers who are either making a lawful detention or arrest, or who are seeking to effect a lawful detention or arrest. Id.