State v. Barker, 227 Ariz. 89

Barker was convicted of resisting arrest following a two-day trial in which officers attempted to detain him after an argument and suspected disorderly conduct.
Officers Miller and Morris used force and a Taser while trying to handcuff Barker amid a struggle in which all three men fell to the ground.
Barker allegedly pulled away, resisted handcuffing, and subsequently grabbed the Taser wires, broke them, and advanced toward an officer.
The jury found Barker guilty of resisting arrest (a class 6 felony), and he received probation for three years.
Barker argued on appeal that he could not resist arrest because he was not formally under arrest, challenging the meaning of ‘effecting an arrest’ under A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1).
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that an arrest may be effectual even without a formal declaration of arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must an officer formally announce arrest to convict?	Barker contends no arrest until formally announced.	State argues arrest can be effected without declaration.	No, formal announcement unnecessary; effecting an arrest suffices.
Did officers effect Barker's arrest despite detainment?	Barker claims no arrest occurred as he was not handcuffed or formally under arrest.	The officers’ use of force and pursuit toward handcuffing showed ongoing arresting process.	Yes, there was an ongoing process of effecting an arrest.

State v. Cole, 172 Ariz. 590, 838 P.2d 1351 (App. 1992) (arrest defined as freedom of movement curtailed)
State v. Mitchell, 204 Ariz. 216, 62 P.3d 616 (App. 2003) (effecting an arrest is an ongoing process)
State v. Bay, 130 Ohio App.3d 772, 721 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio App. 1998) (arrest not necessarily instantaneous)
United States v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991) (seizure occurs when seized by force or submission to show of authority)
State v. Womack, 174 Ariz. 108, 847 P.2d 609 (App. 1992) (mere flight without contact not resisting arrest)