K.W. v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. LEXIS 147
Ind.2013Background
- K.W., a student, encountered in a hallway scuffle with another student; a school liaison officer, Smith, attempted to handcuff him.
- Smith, a private security officer assigned as a school liaison but also a sworn IMPD sergeant, intervened in the incident.
- K.W. turned away from Smith’s grasp and began to resist; Smith used a straight-arm takedown and handcuffed him.
- K.W. was adjudicated delinquent for resisting law enforcement without a disposition imposed.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was insufficient evidence that Smith was lawfully engaged in the officer’s duties; Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed, vacating the delinquency adjudication for lack of forcible resistance.
- Court invites legislative consideration on extending resisting-law-enforcement liability to school-resource officers and similar figures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.W. forcibly resisted the officer | K.W. resisted by turning and pulling away; force beyond mere movement is implied by takedown | There was no force beyond normal resistance; turning away and stepping back do not amount to forcible resistance | Insufficient evidence of forcible resistance; reversal and vacatur of adjudication |
| Whether school liaison/officers fall within resisting-law-enforcement statute | Policy supports including school-officer conduct under the statute | Risk of conflating school-discipline with law enforcement warrants caution | Legislature may consider expansion; court does not extend statute here; policy note for legislature |
| Whether the decision should be limited by distinctions between school-discipline and law-enforcement duties | Disciplinary actions by school officers may satisfy “lawfully engaged” duties for resisting | Maintaining fourth amendment protections requires avoiding hat-switching; limits extend to law-enforcement duties | Court acknowledges distinction and declines to apply extended scope without legislative change |
| Effect of the evidence, including video, on sufficiency of the element of force | Video corroborates resistance | Video shows only minimal resistance; not enough to prove forcible force | Video does not establish forcible resistance beyond reasonable doubt; adjudication vacated |
| Scope of holding to the case at issue | Reversal of the delinquency adjudication; not extending broadly beyond K.W.’s facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 1993) (forcibly means strong, violent resistance; not required to be extreme)
- Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009) (force need not be extreme; some resistance is permissible)
- A.C. v. State, 929 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (leaning away or minimal resistance not necessarily forcible)
- Ajabu v. State, 704 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (twisting and turning a little bit not forcible)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (video evidence informing assessment of factual conduct)
- Grace v. State, 731 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. 2000) (elemental sufficiency requires evidence on each material element)
- Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (reaffirmed standard for sufficiency review)
- D.L. v. State, 877 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (school-discipline authority distinctions acknowledged)
- C.S. v. State, 735 N.E.2d 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (pat-downs and searches context in school setting)
- D.B. v. State, 728 N.E.2d 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (school-officer versus law-enforcement duties distinction)