11.1: Crimes Against Officers

Resisting an Executive Officer

The crime of resisting an executive officer is defined in section 69 of the California Penal Code.

(a) Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law, or who knowingly resists, by the use of force or violence, the officer, in the performance of his or her duty, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Resisting an Officer

The crime of resisting an officer is defined in section 148 of the California Penal Code.

(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Resisting Arrest and Racism - the Crime of "Disrespect"

John Hill is a poor Black man, his body covered in burn scars. He was riding his bicycle down Alston Avenue in Durham, North Carolina to his job at a convenience store. As he neared the intersection at North Carolina Central University Law School where I teach, he saw the light was red. Having cycled through the intersection many times on his way to work, John timed his pedaling perfectly so that the light turned green as he entered the intersection. A Durham City Police Officer, Officer Daniels, saw John and initiated a traffic stop for entering the intersection while the red light was still red.

Officer Daniels was a member of Durham's High Enforcement Abatement Team (HEAT) charged with drug enforcement and investigations. He was not a regular traffic control or patrol officer. Officer Daniels' job was "handle crime hot spots,"' and not issue traffic tickets. Officer Daniels exited his vehicle and violated protocol when he did not have the audio microphone running on the recording equipment. But the video dash cam in his patrol vehicle captured the incident. As Officer Daniels approached John, John tried to explain that he did not run the red light. He told Officer Daniels he was on his way to work, and timed the entry into the intersection as it turned green. Officer Daniels informed John that a dash cam (video recorder) in his vehicle was recording their interaction. John suggested that they look at the video as proof he did not run the red light. Officer Daniels began yelling at John to sit down.

After yelling at John for 60 seconds, Officer Daniels threw John to the ground and placed him in a take-down hold. John began yelling, "I can't breathe!" Other officers arrived at the scene and piled on John. During the attack on John, officers busted his head and fractured his arm. Officer Daniels arrested John and searched his backpack, finding nothing. Then he took John to the Durham County jail where he was booked for two charges: running a red light on a bicycle and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty. At trial, the officer testified he never heard John yell he could not breathe. He also said John Hill came at him and threatened his safety, but the video clearly showed that John stood on the curb and never approached the officer. Chief District Court Judge Morey dismissed the resisting charge on the grounds Officer Daniels used excessive force saying, "I don't see that there was any reason to place hands on him. I didn't see aggression. There was much inconsistency between what we could hear and what we could see. He was slammed."

The charge of "resisting, delaying, or obstructing" (RDO) is a law enforcement tool used to punish non-cooperative suspects. The offense is not used to protect officer safety or promote public safety, but instead officers use the Resisting charge as a discretionary tool to suppress dissent and penalize vulnerable arrestees. The Resisting charge epitomizes the way that policing of poor people and people of color is more about social control than public safety.

This kind of situation happens repeatedly in my community and around the country, sometimes with deadly consequences. It deserves careful attention and understanding from multiple points of view. It is layered with psychology, history, culture, economics, politics, and the law. The fundamental values at stake are described as "respect" or "trust," concerns of "officer safety" and "racial profiling," "equal protection of the law." Although people can demonstrate respect even when there is none, police can only earn real respect over time with demonstrated fair treatment and professional integrity.

Not all officers behave this way. Some of them do not stretch their authority to its limits, and then assert their power in arrogant disrespect. Unfortunately, some defenders of this police behavior minimize this symptom of systemic racialized oppression by individualizing the problem - police misconduct is a matter of "a few bad apples," they say. These apologists forget the full aphorism, "a few bad apples spoil the barrel." This behavior is not the result of a few "bad apples," it is police power used to control people of color, rather than keeping communities safe. Officer Daniels did not throw Mr. Hill to the ground and injure him for the sake of public safety. He did it to control Mr. Hill. Such contested police encounters offer an opportunity to not only explore and remedy some of the failures of our criminal justice system.⁸⁶

---

⁸⁶Holmes (2017)