Opinion ID: 1926942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the privilege of resisting an illegal arrest

Text: There are several cases of this Court which hold that a person unlawfully arrested may legally resist. Jolliff v. State, 215 So.2d 234 (Miss. 1968); Smith v. State, 208 So.2d 746 (Miss. 1968); King v. State, 246 Miss. 86, 149 So.2d 482 (1963); Pettis v. State, 209 Miss. 726, 48 So.2d 355 (1950); Hinton v. Sims, 171 Miss. 741, 158 So. 141 (1934); Deaton v. State, 137 Miss. 164, 102 So. 175 (1924); and Merritt v. State, 5 So. 386 (Miss. 1889). The broadest pronouncement of the right to resist occurs in King, supra, an obstruction of justice case. In dictum the Court, citing 4 Am.Jur., Arrests, section 92, page 63 (1936), stated: The right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference with it may be resisted. Every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest; and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary. (149 So.2d at 484) An analysis of King reveals that its holding is not as broad as the dictum suggests. In it two officers, without warrant or probable cause, pursued a car which pulled into a private driveway. The driver fled into or upon the premises of a private home. As the officers arrived on the private property the owner asked why they were trespassing and demanded they leave, thus essentially barring the pursuit but without using physical violence. The Court held that where a citizen, without violence, confronts peace officers who had neither a warrant nor probable cause to arrest and bars them from his premises, there was not a prima facie case of obstructing justice and the conviction was reversed. Cases subsequent to King have carefully restricted the privilege of resistance to this limitation rather than broadening it by indulging its dictum. Smith v. State, 208 So.2d 746 (Miss. 1968), involved invasion of private premises and an unarmed physical resistance by the owner when the officers stated they had a warrant but would not produce it when demanded by the arrestee. Similarly, Jolliff v. State, 215 So.2d 234 (Miss. 1968), involved the invasion of private business premises where officers stated they had no warrant and the resistance was limited to unarmed nonviolent resistance. In considering these cases, the Court has adhered to a limited right to resist arrest. In determining the scope of the privilege it has identified several variables which it measured: (1) The nature and location of the premises where the attempted arrest occurred; (2) Inquiry as to whether the arrest was made with apparent legal authority as opposed to no claim of authority; (3) The potential for violence and physical harm under the circumstances of the particular confrontation; (4) Whether the force used in resistance was reasonable considering the above factors. Applying these standards to the present case it is apparent that the limited privilege of resisting arrest does not lend itself in support of Watkins' violent resistance which fortunately did not terminate in  homicide. The arrest was made upon a public highway by an officer, summoned by another officer, both of whose identities as officers with apparent legal authority were unquestioned because they were in full uniform and clearly marked patrol cars. Compare Craft v. State, 202 Miss. 43, 30 So.2d 414 (1947); and Hinton v. Sims, 171 Miss. 741, 158 So. 141 (1934). Moreover, Officer Steed, summoned to the scene, was confronted with a passenger in an automobile at 1:30 a.m. who he believed was intoxicated because of the wine bottle, glazed eyes and the stumbling upon getting out of the car. Officer Steed's arrest of Watkins, unaccompanied by either vocal or physical abuse, was not unreasonable under these circumstances, in our opinion. To the contrary, Watkins' resistance included the intended death of Steed and was accompanied by overt but unfruitful acts to that result. There is no judicial way that Watkins' resistance can be classified as privileged or condoned by a court in modern society. Conceding the appellant's right of freedom, liberty and privilege against unauthorized restraint, his greatest discomfiture would have been the possible embarrassment of arrest and detention for the remainder of the night. Moreover, there would have been available to him the legal processes of the courts for vindicating his illegal arrest if indeed it was such. We conclude the first assignment of error is without merit.