State v. Patnesky

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 09-10-2014
  • Case #: A149433
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; & Hadlock, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 162.247, the passive resistance exception to the crime of interfering with a peace officer only applies to actions “commonly associated with governmental protest or civil disobedience.”

Defendant was convicted of interfering with a peace officer after the officer requested Defendant to talk to him on suspicion of DUII. Defendant resisted the officers’ hold on him and officers responded by using a Taser. Defendant appealed his conviction, assigning error to the trail court’s denial of his motion for acquittal, arguing that because he was not violent or physically resistant he was passively resisting, which is not interfering with a peace officer. The state argued that Defendant took “active steps” not to cooperate, which was not passive resistance. The Court held that all elements of the crime of interfering with a peace officer were present and shown with sufficient evidence to prove Defendant was not engaging in passive resistance. The passive resistance exception only applies when an individual is engaging in actions “commonly associated with governmental protest or civil disobedience.” Affirmed.

Advanced Search