Court Opinion

ID: 9644636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:01:07.348635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:16.192573
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
In the matter of Biagini, the defendant was convicted of resisting arrest. The facts are not in dispute that the defendant was preventing a public servant (the police officer) from discharging a duty — the investigation of a public disturbance. The definition of resisting arrest is clear and unambiguous. Under the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104, resisting arrest is defined as:
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with the intent of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty, the person creates a substantial risk of bodily ipjury to the public servant or anyone else, or employs means justifying or *40requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance. (emphasis added).
The majority ignores the element of preventing the discharge of any other duty (i.e., the investigation of a public disturbance) and concentrates on the element of lawful arrest. That is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether the defendants were resisting arrest by interfering in the police officer’s investigation of the public disturbance and not resisting a lawful arrest. If so, they are guilty of violating Section 5104. That’s how the statute is written and that’s how we should apply it.
In Biagini and Barry W., I would affirm the Superior Court.
CASTILLE, J., joins this Dissenting Opinion.