Have We Lost the Right of Self Defense?

Does the law still provide an individual with theCourt of Appeals have the held the following on
right to resist an unlawful order from or unlawfulthis issue:
arrest of a police officer? Until a recent case IExamining the language of the MCL 750.81d, unlike
had, I thought the answer to this question wasin MCL 750.479, we find no reference to the
absolutely yes. However, pursuant to Michiganlawfulness of the arrest or detaining act. The
Compiled Law 750.81(b)(1), and the caseslanguage of MCL [Page 376] 750.81d is abundantly
interpreting that statute, I learned I was wrong.clear and states only that an individual who resists
This is another good example of how despite ana person the individual knows or has reason to
attorney's continuing legal education andknow is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.
experience, one should never presume that theMCL 750.81d. Because the language of the statute
law has remained fixed and unchanged. Thisis clear and unambiguous, further construction is
statute states as follows:neither necessary nor permitted, and we decline
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), andto "'expand what the Legislature clearly intended
(4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds,to cover'" and "read in" a lawfulness requirement.
resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers aDavis, supra, 468 Mich 79, citing Pasha, supra, 466
person who the individual knows or has reason toMich 382."Courts and legislatures in other
know is performing his or her duties is guilty of ajurisdictions have found the right to resist an
felony punishable by imprisonment for not moreunlawful arrest to be outmoded in our
than 2 years or a fine of not more thancontemporary society." Wess, supra, 235 Mich
$2,000.00, or both.App 245.
This statute recently replaced a previous lawIn Wess, after finding that a citizen's right to use
which did allow for a statutory defense tosuch reasonable force as is necessary to prevent
resisting an unlawful arrest. According to MCLan illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest
750.479;does not extend to third party intervenors, this
Any person who shall knowingly and willfully . . .Court discussed the status of Michigan's
obstruct, resist, oppose, assault, beat or wound . .unlawful-arrest theory. The Wess Court stated:
. any person or persons authorized by law toWe share the concerns of other jurisdictions that
maintain and preserve the peace, in their lawfulthe right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded
acts, attempts and efforts to maintain, preserveand dangerous doctrine, and we urge our
and keep the peace shall be guilty of aSupreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the
misdemeanor . . . .first available opportunity and to bring Michigan in
Until fairly recently, the Michigan Court of Appealsline with the majority view as articulated in State
has interpreted this statute in the following way:v Valentine, 132 Wash 2d 1; 935 P 2d 1294
This Court has stated the elements of resisting(1997).
arrest under MCL 750.479 were: (1) theWe see no benefit to continuing the right to resist
defendant resisted arrest, (2) the arrest wasan otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law
lawful, (3) the person arresting the defendant wasenforcement officer, merely because the
an officer of the law at the time, (4) thearrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given
defendant knew the person was an officer, (5)modern procedural safeguards for criminal
the defendant knew the person was making andefendants, the "right" only preserves the
arrest, and (6) the defendant intended to resist.possibility that harm will come to the arresting
People vs. Ventura 262 Mich. App. 370 (2004)officer or the defendant. [ Wess, supra, 235 Mich
citing; People v MacLeod, 254 Mich App 222, 226;App 244- 245 n 1.] When the Legislature enacts
656 NW2d 844 (2002), citing MCL 750.479; Peoplestatutes, it has knowledge of existing laws on the
v Little, 434 Mich752, 755 n 5; 456 NW2d 237same subject, People v Ramsdell, 230 Mich App
(1990). Therefore, under MCL 750.749, the right386, 393; 585 NW2d 1 (1998), and it is not within
to resist an unlawful arrest was, in essence, aour province to disturb our Legislature's obvious
defense to the charge of resisting arrest, becauseaffirmative choice to modify the traditional
the legality of the arrest was an element of thecommon [Page 377] law rule that a person may
charged offense. People v Rice, 192 Mich Appresist an unlawful arrest. When prosecuting a
240, 243; 481 NW2d 10 (1991).charge drawn upon MCL 750.81d, we adopt the
In my own practice, the case I am referring tomodern rule that a person may not use force to
involves two defendants who were on their wayresist an arrest made by one he knows or has
to a friend's house. A number of third-partyreason to know is performing his duties regardless
witnesses, including a building superintendent,of whether the arrest is illegal under the
contacted the police and gave a description ofcircumstances of the occasion.
four individuals who apparently had committed anAssaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer while
assault and had displayed a gun. Based on thehe is performing his duty must be avoided for the
descriptions given to the police from dispatch,safety of all society, regardless of the legality of
they went to the scene. So far, the police arethe arrest. It is the immediate harm that can be
well within their rights to approach a residenceattendant to an arrest when a subject engages in
based upon what was told to them in a dispatchassault, resistant, or obstructive behavior that the
transmission. The residence in question was anLegislature seeks to eradicate. Solid mechanisms
apartment building, and, one of the police officersare in place to guarantee the safety of those
who had been to this residence on many priorarrested, and, to correct any injustices that may
occasions, decided that he knew which apartmentresult from an illegal arrest. The statute at issue,
door to knock on to investigate the allegedMCL 750.81d, now serves as another mechanism
incident. He did so, was invited into the apartment,to reduce the likelihood and magnitude of the
and then proceeded to search the apartmentpotential dangers inherent in an arrest situation,
without obtaining consent to search. At this point,thereby dually protecting both the general public
the police have engaged in an unconstitutionaland its police officers.
search of the apartment that went far beyondIf you are involved in a traffic stop and you ask
any plain sight or plain view exceptions to thethe police officer why you were pulled over, have
fourth amendment of the Constitution.you "obstructed" or "opposed" the officer in the
My client was found hiding in a closet, and he wasexecution of his duties? Can you interfere in a
ordered out of the closet. Pursuant to thefive on one police beating of a suspect? This
arresting officer's own preliminary hearinghappened in New Orleans after Katrina. Can you
testimony the defendant, "did not move fastinterfere when the police tazer a woman to death
enough" for him. As such he was pulled out of thein an airport? This happened in an airport in
closet thrown down on the bed and charged withPhoenix, Arizona. It seems that a citizen cannot
resisting arrest. No gun was found and there is noact pursuant to their own judgment and
evidence of any wrongdoing of any kind exceptconscience to intervene on another's behalf when
for the fact that the police found this particularthe police have engaged in clearly unlawful conduct
defendant hiding from them in a closet.without risking being charged with a felony under
Does the fact that the police made anany circumstances. If you happen to disagree with
unconstitutional search provide a defense againstthe Michigan Court of Appeals on this issue, the
the crime of resisting arrest with which thebest thing you can do is contact your state
defendant was charged? No. Thelegislator or join a political action committee that
unconstitutionality of the search can be challengedshares your opinion.
with a motion to exclude any evidence that wasIf you enjoyed this article and would like more
discovered pursuant to that search. At whichinformation on Michigan legal issues visit this
point, the entire case may be dismissed for lackwebsite:michigancriminalattorney.net
of evidence. However, according to the statuteBy Christopher P. Kohler
and People vs. Ventura it does not provide aAttorney at Law
defense for the fact that these particularKohler & Associates, P.C.
individuals were unlawfully arrested. The Michigan