Court Opinion

ID: 9860873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:34:57.14629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:49.790152
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the conclusions reached by the majority after reciting the undisputed facts in this case.
*726I believe the trial judge correctly summed up the situation when in his order denying the motion to correct error he stated, among other things:
"'That the actions of the defendant in resisting, obstructing and interfering with authorized service of process by declaring that he would not accept service at work, by refusing to accept service of process at his place of employment, by ordering the officer to leave and by walking away after receiving an order to stop were active, not passive, in nature and therefore, forceful, unlawful,. ..."
The holding of the majority makes a mockery of the attempt of a police officer to serve process. If one extends the majority's reasoning to any type of arrest, a person could not be prosecuted under the statute if he simply informed the police officer that he was peacefully refusing to be arrested and turned and walked away or for that matter peacefully ran away. Society should not tolerate, and I doubt it was the intention of the legislature in passing the statute to tolerate rude and insolent refusal to obey a police officer.
I would affirm the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.