Opinion ID: 1203740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: use of force against officers

Text: Springdale contends that the Circuit Court erred in holding that Butler had the right to use force to eject the police officers and to use deadly force in resisting the arrest. We agree. The circuit court judge and Butler cite § 16-11-620 in support of the argument that the officers were required to leave the premises when requested to do so. Reliance on this statute is misplaced. This statute is not applicable because it refers to a person who is on the property without legal cause or good excuse. Here, the police officers were responding to a complaint and therefore had legal cause to be on the property. Furthermore, the statute provides a monetary fine or imprisonment as the remedy. It does not grant the landowner the right to eject. In addition, the trial court erred in finding that Butler had the right to use deadly force in resisting the arrest. Butler cites a line of cases that supports the contention that force may be used in resisting an unlawful arrest. See e.g., State v. Bethune , 112 S.C. 100, 99 S.E. 753 (1919); State v. Robertson , 191 S.C. 509, 5 S.E. (2d) 285 (1939); State v. Poinsett , 250 S.C. 293, 157 S.E. (2d) 570 (1967); State v. DeBerry , 250 S.C. 314, 157 S.E. (2d) 637 (1967). We conclude that those cases are inapplicable to the situation at bar where the arrest was lawful. Having reversed the Circuit Court, we need not address Springdale's remaining question. Reversed. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.