Court Opinion

ID: 9791859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:19:33.280503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:39.031853
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the above opinion because of two special circumstances involved.
(1) The person assailed was dressed as, and was known to the defendant as a police officer, and (2) at the time of the occurrence in question it was clear to the defendant and his companions that they had nothing to fear by way of injury to person or *128property. If one or both, of these factors were not present, it might be seriously argned that as a matter of law the force used to protect against unwarranted intrusion was justified.
The Oregon Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between aggression by a person other than a police officer, and an attempted unlawful arrest by a known officer with nothing to be reasonably apprehended beyond a mere temporary detention. In State v. Meyers, 57 Or 50, 56, 110 P 407 (1910), the court said:
“* * * Thus where the arresting party himself uses a deadly weapon or signifies his immediate intention to do so, or where an unauthorized person* being armed, attempts to break into one’s dwelling to make an unlawful arrest, or where it is attempted in such a way as to put one in fear of death or great bodily harm, in such rare instances one may be justified in using a. deadly weapon. But we wish to be understood as holding emphatically that, where the attempted arrest is made by a known officer, and there is nothing to be apprehended beyond a mere temporary detention, the question of the right of such officer cannot be tried out with a pistol.”
The Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, prepared by the Criminal Law Revision Commission, recognizes the distinction postulated by State v. Meyers, supra. The Commission, in its Commentary on p 31 of its Final Draft and Report, dated July 1970, cites State v. Meyers, supra, and cites with approval the following from Perkins, Criminal Law 997 (2d ed 1969):
“ ‘At common law any unlawful arrest was a trespass which could be resisted by whatever non-deadly force reasonably seemed necessary to retain or regain the liberty of the arrestee. It seems, however, that when an arrest is being made by a known peace officer, any disagreement as to the *129authority to make the arrest should be settled in court rather than by violence on the street. Hence the modern trend is in the direction of some such statutory provision as this: “If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest.” In any event if the unlawful arrest is attempted under circumstances which obviously threaten no more than a very temporary deprivation of liberty, the use of deadly force in resistance is not privileged ; but if the unlawful manner of the arrest reasonably leads the arrestee to believe he is the victim of a murderous assault, or of kidnapers, homicide committed by him will not be criminal if he uses no more force than reasonably appears to be necessary under the circumstances.’ ”
Accordingly, the Criminal Law Eevision Commission has incorporated into its proposed legislation the following:
“Section 32. A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful.” Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, 31 (1970).