State v. LindsayState v. Lindsay
Defendant was charged by bill of information with disturbing the peace by being intoxicated in violation of
Defendant and his witnesses presented an еntirely different version of the incident. They claimed that as soon as defendant walked up the officers grabbed him and began beating him. The trial judge believed thе officers’ version of the facts, but acquitted defendant of the charge of disturbing the peace by being intoxicated because defendant was not in рublic but was on his own property. Defendant was convicted of resisting an officer, which is defined as:
“... the intentional opposition or resistance to, оr obstruction of, an individual acting in his official capacity and authorized by law to make a lawful arrest or seizure of property, or to serve any lаwful process or court order, when the offender knows or has reason to know that the person arresting, seizing property, or serving process is aсting in his official capacity.
“The phrase `obstruction of’ as used herein shall, in addition to its common meaning, signification and connotation mean:
“(a) Flight by оne sought to be arrested before the arresting officer can restrain him and after notice is given that he is under arrest.
“(b) Any violence toward or any resistаnce or opposition to the arresting officer after the arrested party is actually placed under arrest and before he is incarcerated in jail.
“(c) Refusal by the arrested party to give his name and make his identity known to the arresting officer.
“(d) Congregates with others on a public street and rеfuses to move on when ordered by the officer.”
R.S. 14:108 .
It is a long-established principle in Louisiana law that a citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. White v. Morris, 345 So.2d 461 (La.1977); City of New Orleans v. Lyons, 342 So.2d 196 (La.1977); State v. Lopez, 235 So.2d 394 (La.1970); City of Monroe v. Ducas, 203 La. 974, 14 So.2d 781 (1943);
“The right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference with it may be resisted. Every person has a right to resist an unlawful аrrest; and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.” 14 So.2d at 784.
In a more recent opinion, we reaffirmed the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and concluded its basis is found in statutory law (
The sole question presented in this case is whether lawful grounds existed to arrest defendant. If nоt, then his conviction of resisting an officer in violation of
In his brief in behalf of the state, counsel asserts the arrest was lawful but does not explain the basis of this contention. In our review, we will consider the lawfulness of the arrest from two approaches: (1) Did defendant‘s intoxication provide probable cause for an arrest? (2) Was the arrest lawful, as the trial judge apparently concluded, because defendant‘s antagonistic language and movement toward Deputy Sharp constituted a violation of resisting an officer (
Defendant‘s Intoxication
Although defendant was acquitted of disturbing the peаce by being intoxicated, it remains possible that the officers did, in fact, have probable cause to arrest defendant on the charge, even thоugh the state could not prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to justify a person of ordinary caution in believing the person to be arrested has committed a crime. State v. Davis, 357 So.2d 519 (La.1978); State v. Dunbar, 356 So.2d 956 (La.1978); State v. Johnson, 192 So.2d 135, 249 La. 950 (1966).
Disturbing the peace is “the doing of any of the following in such a manner as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public:... (3) appearing in an intoxicated condition.”
In State v. Jordan, 369 So.2d 1347 (La. 1979), we concluded that the words “foreseeably disturb or alarm the public“, as found in
Like the trial judge, it is difficult for us to imagine how defendant‘s conduct on his own property, and under the circumstances of this case, could foreseeably have disturbed the public. Thе incident took place in a rural area outside of Covington. There is no evidence which indicates the encounter with defendant occurred сlose to any other dwelling place where the public might possibly be alarmed. In fact, the officers testified that no one except defendant‘s family observed the incident. Because we conclude no probable cause existed to believe defendant‘s conduct could have foresеeably disturbed or alarmed the public, defendant‘s intoxication did not provide grounds for his arrest for disturbance of the peace and his arrest cannot be justified on that basis.
Interference with the Officers’ Authority to Investigate
The trial judge appears to have concluded defendant was guilty of resisting an officer in violation of
In State v. Huguet, 369 So.2d 1331 (La. 1979), we rejected the contention that interference with an officer‘s investigation is a violation of
Consequently, any behavior of defendant, such as his movement toward Officer
For the above reasons, we hold that the arrest of defendant in this case was unlawful, and because he had a right to resist the unlawful arrest, his conviction of resisting an officer must be reversed.
REVERSED.