STOP RESISTING!!!!

You know what I think is odd?  Police who yell/shout/scream at people they're arresting to stop resisting who are also trying NOT to be arrested - and then charge people with resisting arrest because, why?!

I mean, who in their right mind WANTS to be restrained and/or put in handcuffs (well, unless, uh,...they're into that sort of thing in the bedroom, or something).

It's only natural to resist being restrained and then you go and penalize someone for resisting?  It's like saying you can't breathe and then get arrested for breathing. 

Anyway, I was out and about the other day and I witnessed two police officers arresting this guy who really didn't want to be arrested.  He was flip flopping more than a politician in an election year and all the while the police were yelling, "STOP RESISTING!!!" and he wasn't having it.

Two tasers later, guy was subdued, in the back of the patrol car, and off to the pokey.

So, for reference sake, “resisting arrest” is a criminal charge that generally applies when a person intentionally tries to prevent a law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out an arrest, detention, or search. 

Not only is resisting arrest a criminal charge, but it is a separate charge not connected to the underlying charge.  In almost every U.S. jurisdiction, resisting arrest is its own, independent criminal offense.  

This means prosecutors can (and often do) charge resisting arrest in addition to the crime that led to the arrest (e.g., DUI + resisting).

So, even if the underlying charge is later dismissed, dropped, or results in acquittal, the resisting arrest charge does not automatically go away. Prosecutors can still pursue resisting arrest, because the elements are different.  What matters is whether the officer was acting under color of law and the defendant engaged in “resisting” behavior. 

What are some examples of resisting behavior?

• Running away after being told you’re under arrest.
• Physically struggling or refusing to put your hands behind your back.
• Blocking or interfering with another person’s arrest.
• Giving false identification during an arrest (in some jurisdictions). 

Other related charges associated with resisting arrest include:

• Obstruction of justice.
• Assault on a peace officer.
• Escape (if someone flees after being arrested or in custody). 

Courts often draw an important distinction when looking at a charge of resisting arrest. 

If the underlying charge fails on technical grounds (e.g., lack of evidence, procedural defect), resisting arrest usually still stands.  On the other hand, if the arrest itself was unlawful (e.g., no probable cause, unconstitutional stop), then the resisting arrest charge is often thrown out.

While it's called different things in different jurisdictions, every state in the union has a statute dealing with resisting arrest, like so:

Alabama: Code of Alabama §13A-10-41 – Resisting Arrest (Class B misdemeanor).

Alaska: Alaska Stat. §11.56.700 – Resisting or Interfering with Arrest.

Arizona: A.R.S. §13-2508 – Resisting Arrest (Class 6 felony if using force).

Arkansas: Ark. Code §5-54-103 – Resisting Arrest.

California: Cal. Penal Code §148(a)(1) – Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing an Officer.

Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-8-103 – Resisting Arrest.

Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-167a – Interfering with an Officer.

Delaware: Del. Code tit. 11, §1257 – Resisting Arrest with Force or Violence.

Florida: Fla. Stat. §843.01–843.02 – Resisting Officer with Violence (felony) and Without Violence (misdemeanor).

Georgia: O.C.G.A. §16-10-24 – Obstructing or Hindering Law Enforcement.

Hawaii: HRS §710-1026 – Resisting Arrest.

Idaho: Idaho Code §18-705 – Resisting and Obstructing Officers.

Illinois: 720 ILCS 5/31-1 – Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer.

Indiana: Ind. Code §35-44.1-3-1 – Resisting Law Enforcement.

Iowa: Iowa Code §719.1 – Interference with Official Acts.

Kansas: Kan. Stat. §21-5904 – Interference with Law Enforcement.

Kentucky: KRS §520.090 – Resisting Arrest.

Louisiana: La. R.S. §14:108 – Resisting an Officer.

Maine: 17-A M.R.S. §751 – Refusing to Submit to Arrest or Detention.

Maryland: Md. Code, Crim. Law §9-408 – Resisting Arrest.

Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, §32B – Resisting Arrest.

Michigan: MCL §750.81d – Resisting and Obstructing a Police Officer.

Minnesota: Minn. Stat. §609.50 – Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest, or Firefighting.

Mississippi: Miss. Code §97-9-73 – Resisting Arrest.

Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. §575.150 – Resisting or Interfering with Arrest, Detention, or Stop.

Montana: Mont. Code §45-7-301 – Resisting Arrest.

Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-904 – Resisting Arrest.

Nevada: NRS §199.280 – Resisting Public Officer.

New Hampshire: RSA §642:2 – Resisting Arrest or Detention.

New Jersey: N.J.S.A. §2C:29-2 – Resisting Arrest; Eluding Officer.

New Mexico: NMSA §30-22-1 – Resisting, Evading, or Obstructing an Officer.

New York: N.Y. Penal Law §205.30 – Resisting Arrest.

North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-223 – Resist, Delay, or Obstruct an Officer.

North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-08-02 – Preventing Arrest or Discharge of Other Duties.

Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code §2921.33 – Resisting Arrest.

Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. §268 – Resisting Executive Officer.

Oregon: ORS §162.315 – Resisting Arrest.

Pennsylvania: 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5104 – Resisting Arrest or Other Law Enforcement.

Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-10 – Resisting Lawful Arrest.

South Carolina: S.C. Code §16-9-320 – Resisting Arrest; Assaulting an Officer While Resisting Arrest.

South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws §22-11-4 – Resisting Arrest.

Tennessee: Tenn. Code §39-16-602 – Resisting Stop, Frisk, Halt, Arrest, or Search.

Texas: Tex. Penal Code §38.03 – Resisting Arrest, Search, or Transportation.

Utah: Utah Code §76-8-305 – Interference with Arresting Officer.

Vermont: 13 V.S.A. §3017 – Resisting Arrest.

Virginia: Va. Code §18.2-460(E) – Obstructing Justice (Resisting Arrest provision).

Washington: RCW §9A.76.040 – Resisting Arrest.

West Virginia: W. Va. Code §61-5-17 – Obstructing an Officer.

Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §946.41 – Resisting or Obstructing Officer.

Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. §6-5-204 – Resisting Arrest.

So, how does this all play out in real life?  I mean, do resisting arrest charges stick or do they get tossed out like charges for interfering with police?  Turns out, there are no hard and fast rules and resisting arrest is not always a guaranteed win.

United States Supreme Court

• Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900)

  • Holding: A defendant could resist an unlawful arrest (at the time) and use reasonable force. The Court overturned the conviction, reasoning that if the officer had no right to arrest, resistance wasn’t a crime.

  • Note: Most modern jurisdictions no longer follow this strict rule — now you generally cannot resist even an unlawful arrest.

Alaska

• Howard v. State, 109 P.3d 1033 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005).

• The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed a resisting-arrest conviction because the defendant ran from a trooper and hid in the woods, but there was insufficient evidence that he used the “force” required by Alaska's resisting-arrest statute, AS 11.56.700. Alaska's statute doesn't make mere noncompliance or flight automatically resisting arrest. Section 11.56.700 requires that the person resist by force, criminal mischief, or means creating a substantial risk of physical injury. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

California

• People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347 (1969)

  • Conviction for resisting arrest reversed because jury instructions failed to clarify that the defendant had a limited right to resist excessive force.

• People v. Quiroga, 16 Cal.App.4th 961 (1993)

  • Resisting arrest conviction overturned; simply refusing to sit down or give one’s name was not enough to constitute “resisting, delaying, or obstructing.”

New York

• People v. Cherry, 307 N.Y. 308 (1954)

  • Overturned resisting arrest conviction because the arrest was unlawful (no probable cause).

  • New York law requires a lawful arrest as a prerequisite for resisting arrest.

Florida

• Slydell v. State, 792 So.2d 667 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

  • Conviction overturned because defendant’s actions (walking away, refusing to answer) didn’t amount to “resisting.”

• Francis v. State, 736 So.2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

  • Simply pulling arm away without violence was not resisting with violence; conviction overturned.

Texas

• Sheehan v. State, 201 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App. 2006)

  • Conviction reversed; refusal to obey officer’s command without physical force did not meet statutory definition of resisting.

North Carolina

• State v. Lynch, 94 N.C. App. 330 (1989)

  • Court overturned resisting arrest conviction because the officer’s stop was unlawful (no reasonable suspicion), so resistance was not criminal.

Ohio

• State v. Stayton, 126 Ohio App.3d 158 (1998)

  • Resisting arrest conviction reversed because the officer was not acting within lawful scope when making the arrest.

Massachusetts

• Commonwealth v. Moreira, 388 Mass. 596 (1983)

  • Conviction overturned; court recognized a limited right to resist excessive force by police.

A few key things to note in cases where a resisting arrest charge was overturned:

1. Unlawful Arrest → If the arrest itself was unlawful (no probable cause, bad stop, invalid warrant), convictions for resisting have been reversed.
2. Insufficient Evidence of Resistance → Passive non-compliance (silence, walking away, pulling arm back slightly) is often not enough to sustain a conviction.
3. Excessive Force by Police → Some courts allow resistance if officers use unreasonable or excessive force.
4. Statutory Interpretation → Courts overturn convictions where prosecution stretched the meaning of “resist” or “obstruct” too far.

That all said, it's important to note that for as many cases where the charge of resisting arrest was overturned, there are as many cases where the charge was upheld in court, like:

United States Supreme Court

• United States v. Cunningham, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (per curiam)

  • Upheld resisting-related conviction under federal law; the Court emphasized that active physical resistance against officers during lawful duties can be punished separately from the underlying offense.

California

• In re Bacon, 240 Cal.App.2d 34 (1966)

  • Conviction upheld where defendant physically struggled against police during a lawful arrest. The court held that “resisting” includes physical opposition.

• People v. Allen, 109 Cal.App.3d 981 (1980)

  • Defendant’s attempt to pull away and strike officers during arrest was sufficient for resisting; conviction affirmed.

Florida

• C.E.L. v. State, 24 So.3d 1181 (Fla. 2009)

  • Florida Supreme Court upheld resisting without violence conviction where juvenile fled from officers during a lawful investigatory stop. Flight alone constituted resistance.

• Santiago v. State, 889 So.2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

  • Conviction affirmed where defendant tensed his arms and refused to be handcuffed, even without throwing punches.

Texas

• Ford v. State, 538 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)

  • Conviction upheld; defendant’s refusal to be handcuffed and physical struggle with officers satisfied statutory definition of resisting arrest.

• Latham v. State, 128 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App. 2004)

  • Affirmed conviction; resisting arrest statute applies even if minimal force is used to prevent lawful arrest.

North Carolina

• State v. Burton, 108 N.C. App. 219 (1992)

  • Conviction affirmed; defendant pulled away and kicked officers during a lawful DWI arrest.

Massachusetts

• Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135 (2000)

  • Conviction upheld where defendant repeatedly refused commands, fled, and physically fought officers; statute covers both passive and active resistance.

Some key themes to note in a valid charge of resisting arrest during a lawful arrest:

1. Lawful Arrest → Courts uphold resisting convictions when probable cause for the arrest exists.

2. Active Resistance → Physical struggles, fleeing, or tensing arms against handcuffs almost always lead to upheld convictions.

3. Passive Resistance Split → Some states (e.g., Florida, Massachusetts) hold that refusal or flight alone can count as resisting; others (like California) require more active conduct.

4. Separate Offense → Courts repeatedly affirm that resisting arrest is distinct from the underlying crime, so even if the other charge is weak, resisting may still stand.

 

Bottom line to all this, if you did the crime, suck it up and do the time.  

If you didn't do the crime, then by all means fight tooth and nail  - in court.  Fight tooth and nail in court because if you fight with police, on the spot, they'll nail you for something else like assaulting a police officer - or worse.

And no one wants that.

 

 

Word of the Month for August 2026: Constructive Termination (aka Constructive Discharge)

It's August and you know what that mean, right?!  

Well, for some people it's a time for new beginnings and in the case of others - a new job.

Thing is, any 1st day of any month is a day of new beginnings.  

Today's new beginning was one youngish lady with toddler in tow who I met at the city public library the other day.  

You know the problem with most public city libraries is that they are generally devoid of anything legal related.  Lots of romance novels, young adult mysteries, graphic novels about Batman and the Justice League but try to find anything legal related and you get bupkis.

Anyway, Lady tells me that she recently left her place of employment because her employer was making life at said place of employment too difficult to continue working there and she was now looking for something (at the city public library that has NOTHING legal related in its entire collection) to help her seek retribution against her now former employer.

What, I suspect, Lady was looking for was something related to constructive termination/discharge.   

CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION occurs when an employee resigns due to intolerable working conditions that were so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in their position would feel compelled to quit. It is treated legally as if the employer terminated the employee, even though the resignation was voluntary in form.

So, imagine you love playing at a playground. But the grown-up who runs the playground starts doing mean things every day:

• They take away your toys on purpose.

• They yell at you for no reason.

• They make you play all alone while other kids get to play together.

• You ask for help, but no one listens.

Now you feel so sad and hurt that you decide, “I don’t want to come to this playground anymore!”

Even though you chose to leave, it was really because the grown-up made it so bad that you had no other choice.

That’s what constructive termination means at work:

“I quit…but it’s because you made my job soooo awful, I had to leave.”

From a more grown-up perspective, in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), the plaintiff, Nancy Drew Suders, quit her job as a dispatcher for the Pennsylvania State Police in August 1998.  She claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor.

In an 8-1 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that an employee faced with a situation in which a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign" could bring suit even if she had not filed a report with the employer before resigning.

After Suders, in cases of constructive termination, the "reasonable person" standard asks:

Would a hypothetical, reasonable employee — in the same circumstances — have felt that quitting was the only viable option?

It does not ask whether the actual plaintiff personally felt forced to quit. Instead, courts look at:

• What an average person with the same job, status, and in the same workplace would do,
• Under similar pressures or abusive conditions,
• With ordinary emotional resilience, not hypersensitivity.

To prove a constructive dismissal, an employee must be able to show:

• There’s been a serious breach of their contract of employment, and
• They’ve resigned in response to that breach and not for some other reason.

As to the first limb of this twofold test, the employee must be able to show a fundamental breach of their employment contract. This could be a breach of either an express contractual term or breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence but, in either case, this must be sufficiently serious so as to justify termination of their contract.

As to the second limb of the test, the employee must show that the actions of the employer resulted in their resignation. This often means that the employee’s decision to resign must quickly follow the conduct complained of, unless they’ve made it clear that they’re working under protest.  

 If there is a marked time gap between the conduct complained of and the employee either lodging a formal grievance or handing in their resignation, an adverse inference can potentially be drawn here from any delay. 

The thing is that not all situations qualify as constructive termination and in some instances, courts have considered facts on a case-by-case basis.  It is important to know what's what before acting.  Some situations which MIGHT qualify as constructive termination where:

1. Demotion Without Cause

• An employee is suddenly demoted without explanation or justification.  If accompanied by humiliation, pay cuts, or loss of duties, this may cross the line into constructive discharge.

2. Unwarranted Reassignments

• A manager repeatedly transfers an employee to undesirable shifts or far-away locations to “encourage” resignation.  Example: Moving a single mother from a daytime role to an overnight one without justification. 

3. Unrealistic or Punitive Workload

• A high-performing employee is suddenly assigned an impossible workload with the goal of setting them up to fail. If this is targeted retaliation (e.g., after reporting harassment), it could support a claim. 

4. Exclusion and Isolation

• An employee is systematically excluded from meetings, communications, or work-related decisions.  If this is retaliatory or based on discrimination, it may be grounds for constructive discharge.

5. Microaggressions or Patterned Disrespect

• Persistent subtle discrimination (e.g., sexist jokes, mocking religious beliefs) that creates a hostile work environment. Even if no single act is severe, the cumulative effect can rise to an intolerable level.

6. Ignoring Workplace Harassment

• An employer fails to act after multiple reports of harassment (verbal, physical, or online), leaving the employee feeling unsafe or unsupported.  Courts often consider employer inaction or retaliation as critical in these cases. 

7. Forced “Resignation” Under Pressure

• A supervisor tells an employee: “Resign or be fired.”  Even if the employee chooses to resign, courts may find this is constructive termination due to coercion.

In case you were wondering, there are a number of REAL cases involving constructive termination, such as:

1. Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016) 

Holding: In a federal employment constructive discharge claim, the limitations period begins when the employee resigns, not when the last discriminatory act occurs.

Key Takeaway: This case clarified the timing for filing a claim — constructive discharge claims accrue on the date of resignation, not earlier. 

2. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 876 P.2d 1022 (1994)

Court: Supreme Court of California

• Facts: Employee resigned alleging intolerable working conditions, including employer inaction over workplace misconduct.

• Holding: The court ruled that constructive termination exists when the employer knowingly permits conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign. The court set the standard for California constructive discharge claims.

Key takeaway: This is the leading California case that explains when resignation counts as wrongful termination.

3. MacKenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 241 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2001)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit

• Facts: Plaintiff alleged gender discrimination and a hostile work environment, leading her to resign.

• Holding: The court ruled against her, emphasizing that conditions must be objectively intolerable, not just unpleasant or stressful.

Key takeaway: Demonstrates that courts require more than subjective dissatisfaction; conditions must meet an objective threshold of severity.

4. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

• Facts: A city employee claimed constructive termination after a co-worker groped her and management failed to act.

• Holding: The court found the single incident, though serious, did not create such intolerable conditions as to support constructive discharge.

Key takeaway: Failure to act can sometimes support a claim, but courts still require the conditions to be pervasive or ongoing.

5. Fischer v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 742 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 2014)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

• Facts: Employee alleged retaliation, demotion, and emotional stress that forced resignation.

• Holding: The court held that while the workplace was unpleasant, it did not meet the threshold for constructive discharge.

Key takeaway: Not every demotion, reassignment, or unpleasant condition rises to the level of constructive termination.

Bottom line, constructive termination cases can be tricky.  Just because you feel that you were treated unfairly doesn't mean that said treatment raises to the "reasonable person" standard.  Best to document everything and consult with an attorney before doing anything. 

But I Didn't Do Anything Wrong!

The more I interact with Internet-land, I am becoming desensitized to the complaints people have after they did something they shouldn't have done.

For instance, tugging on Superman's cape.  I mean really, the guy is fighting crime and you tug on his cape?  Or how about pulling the mask off that old Lone Ranger.  Dang but it should just be common sense of things you just don't do but then there are people out in people land that don't have much common sense.

Funny how people do things and then they start to scream and complain that they didn't do anything when they get arrested for doing the things they did but don't think they should be arrested for doing them.

What things, you ask?

1)  How about Trespass?   

Trespass is entering or remaining on someone else’s property without permission.  It can happen either by going onto private property you’re not allowed to enter, or by refusing to leave after being asked by the owner or an authorized person. Even without posted signs, staying after notice is usually enough to make it illegal.

People who are guilty of trespass might say:

• “It’s not posted!”
• “I didn’t see a sign!” 
• "Why do I have to leave?"

The problem is that (and what I see time and again is) if you’ve been told to leave (by owner, staff, or police) and don’t, that alone can be enough for an arrest—even without signs.

In People v. Brown, 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 915 (App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1965), defendants entered a Bank of America branch (a private business open to the public) and engaged in disruptive conduct inside the premises and were told to leave.  They didn't leave and were arrested and charged under California Penal Code §602 (criminal trespass statutes).  

 

The appellate court noted that a person can be guilty of trespass when they enter property lawfully or unlawfully, AND act in a way that violates the statutory trespass provisions (including interference with business or remaining without consent).

So, if you enter a property that is not your own and fool around such that the owner tells you to leave AND YOU DON'T LEAVE, you can/will most likely be arrested.

Even if you don't think you did anything wrong, if you are told to leave a property and you don't, the time to fight the trespass is NOT when you are trespassing or when you are being handcuffed.  The time to fight a trespass is in court - at your leisure.  

If you choose to scream and fight at the time of the trespass, you're going to be arrested (and probably charged with obstruction and resisting arrest) even if you don't understand why.  

That's just the way this goes.

2)  How about Driving Under the Influence (DUI)?

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is operating a vehicle while your ability to drive safely is impaired by alcohol, drugs (legal or illegal), or a combination of substances.  Impairment can include slowed reaction time, poor judgment, reduced coordination, drowsiness, or altered perception—even if you don’t feel “drunk.”  

What we're talking about here are pretty straight forward cases like Doyle v. State, 2002 OK CR 29, 47 P.3d 530 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) where the defendant (Doyle) was stopped by law enforcement in Oklahoma after officers observed signs of intoxication (driving behavior + field indicators).  Consequently, defendant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) under Oklahoma law and was convicted in district court.  

On appeal, the court held that a DUI conviction may be sustained based on officer observations and circumstantial evidence of impairment, even without any legal deficiency in the arrest or proof. 

DUI laws can be triggered either by observed impairment or by exceeding legal limits (in Utah, a 0.05% BAC), and they also apply to impairment from things like prescription medications, marijuana, or other substances that affect driving ability. 

People are often genuinely surprised during a DUI stop because their mental model of “impaired” doesn’t match how the law defines it.  What many people don't realize is that DUI isn’t just about the consumption of alcohol.  Prescription meds (like painkillers or anti-anxiety drugs), sleep aids, or marijuana can all impair driving—even if legally obtained.

People often think:

• “I feel fine”
• “I only had a couple drinks”

But laws are based on blood alcohol content, not how you feel.  You can be legally impaired well before you feel drunk.  Many assume an hour or two “sobers them up,” but BAC often stays elevated longer than people think.  The time to fight a DUI is not when you are being handcuffed.  If you fight the police when you are being handcuffed, you will most certainly be arrested and things will not go well with you.  

Trust me on this one.

3)  How about Domestic Violence (arguments that turn physical)?

Domestic violence is any act (or threat) of violence, force, or intimidation between people in a close relationship—such as spouses, partners, family members, or people living together.  

Domestic violence doesn’t require serious injury; any unwanted physical contact, attempt to cause harm, or behavior that puts the other person in fear can qualify.  Laws in places like Utah treat these situations seriously, and officers often make an arrest based on probable cause even if the people involved minimize what happened.

What we're looking at here is cases like State v. Harden, 26 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) where the defendant (Harden) and the victim were involved in a domestic relationship.  Seems an argument escalated into physical confrontation.  

The victim testified that the defendant pushed or struck them during the dispute and law enforcement responded.  Harden was subsequently charged with domestic battery and a trial court resolved the case with a conviction for battery.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted that that when credible evidence shows intentional unwanted physical contact during a domestic argument, a domestic battery conviction will be upheld.

What trips people up is that what they're doing doesn’t look like what they imagine “domestic violence” to be:

• “I just pushed them out of the way”.  A shove during an argument—especially if it’s unwanted—can be enough.  It doesn’t have to leave a mark.
• Grabbing, blocking, or restraining.  Holding someone’s arm, pinning them, or standing in a doorway to stop them from leaving can be considered force or intimidation.
• Throwing objects (even if you miss).  Tossing a phone, plate, or anything in anger can qualify because it creates fear of harm.
• Taking or breaking a phone during an argument.  Grabbing a phone to stop someone from calling for help can be treated as both domestic violence and interference with communication.
• “Mutual” arguments that turn physical.  Even if both people are yelling—or both claim fault—police may still arrest one party based on who appears to be the primary aggressor.
• Threats that feel “in the heat of the moment”.  Statements that imply harm (“you’ll regret this,” “I’m going to hurt you”) can count if they put the other person in reasonable fear.
• Minimal or no visible injury.  You don’t need bruises or cuts. The legal threshold is often the act or the fear it creates, not the severity of injury.

 

The common thread is that the law focuses on unwanted force or fear within a relationship, not whether it seemed minor, mutual, or “just part of an argument” at the time.

People say:

• “It was just an argument”
• “I barely touched them”

The issue isn't what you think or do - it's what the other person thinks or feels.  So, maybe put yourself in the other persons shoes for a bit and think what they're going through when you're thinking of pushing them through that plate glass window.

Now, if you're are still unsure what you did to get the police's attention, don't fight it when the handcuffs are being installed on your wrists because if you do resist, you will be arrested and charnged for resisting arrest (at least) nothing will go your way from there on out.

Again, you'll just have to trust me on this. 

4) How about Shoplifting (including “accidental”)?

Shoplifting is taking merchandise from a store without paying for it, or intentionally leaving the premises with unpaid items. It also includes actions like concealing items, altering price tags, or bypassing payment systems.

 

The key difference between intentional and accidental shoplifting is intent: intentional shoplifting involves knowingly trying to deprive the store of payment, while accidental shoplifting happens when someone unintentionally leaves without paying (for example, forgetting an item in a cart or bag). 

However, even if it’s accidental, stores and law enforcement may still treat it as theft based on what actually occurred, which is why misunderstandings can still lead to legal trouble.

What we're looking at are cases like State v. Lillard, 122 Wn. App. 422, 93 P.3d 729 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).  Here, the defendant (Lillard), was engaging in conduct leading to a theft charge under Washington’s theft statute (RCW 9A.56.030 / related provisions).  The case involved taking property without permission and intent to deprive the owner and defendant was convicted at trial.  Lillard later appealed his conviction arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the theft conviction.

The Washington Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the theft conviction, that intent to deprive can be inferred from:

• possession of stolen property
• surrounding circumstances of acquisition
• conduct inconsistent with lawful ownership

The court also noted that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent in theft cases, and appellate courts will not reweigh credibility or substitute their judgment for the jury’s.

 

Typical responses from people after they are caught might include:

• “I forgot it was in my cart”
• “I was going to pay for it”

The problem is that stores and police don’t have to prove long-term intent—the mere asportation or leaving the store without paying is usually enough.  

Screaming "I WANT TO PAY" or "THIS IS ALL MY STUFF" is not going to help your cause.  If you are being arrested for shoplifting, anything you do when/after handcuffs are put on your wrists will only count against you.  Bide your time and let the police do their thing because screaming and struggling will only go against you.

5)  How about Unauthorized Recording / Privacy Violations.

Unauthorized recording / privacy violations involve capturing audio, video, or images of someone without legal permission in a context where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This can include recording conversations without required consent or filming people in private spaces like homes, bathrooms, or locker rooms.  Laws vary by state, but the core idea is protecting people from being recorded when they reasonably expect not to be.

What we're talking about are cases like State v. Kaakimaka, SCWC-22-0000690 (Haw. 2025) where the defendant used a hidden cellphone camera to record a minor showering inside a residence.  The device was placed outside a bathroom window aimed into a “private place.”  Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with Violation of Privacy in the First Degree under HRS § 711-1110.9.

The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction and explained that a “private place” includes areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (like a bathroom inside a home) and noted that secretly recording someone in a private place (like a bathroom) satisfies Hawaii’s criminal “violation of privacy” statute even if the recorder is outside the structure.

Where people get tripped up is the context:

• Private vs. public spaces.  Recording in public (streets, parks) is often legal, but filming inside someone’s home, a restroom, or even certain areas of a business can cross the line.
• Audio recording (consent laws). Some states allow “one-party consent” (only one person in the conversation must know), while others require all parties to consent. Secretly recording a conversation can be illegal depending on location.
• “It’s my phone, I can record anything.”  Ownership of the device doesn’t override privacy laws—where and how you record matters more.
• Sensitive situations.  Recording people in vulnerable or intimate situations (changing clothes, medical settings, etc.) is almost always illegal, even if no harm was intended.
• Posting or sharing recordings.  Even if recording itself was legal, sharing it (especially if it’s private or misleading) can create additional legal issues.

Typical beliefs that trip people up:

• “I can record anything in public”
• “It’s my phone”

Filming in certain places (bathrooms, private property, or even audio recording without consent in some states) can be illegal. 

What is imporant for people to understand is that legality hinges on expectation of privacy and consent, not just whether the recording was technically possible.

I suspect the bottom line to all this "but I didn't do anything wrong" business is to understand that just because YOU don't think you did anything wrong doesn't mean you didn't actually do anything wrong.  

Well, that and struggling with the police when you're being handcuffed almost ALWAYS ends with your face in the pavement and two cops on your back.

Just keep all this in mind when next you are being handcuffed and save the drama for the theater.

I'm just sayin.