New Hampshire House Bill 1137

[Stone]

HOUSE BILL 1137

AN ACT relative to the crime of resisting arrest.

SPONSORS: Rep. Knowles, Straf 11; Rep. Stevens, Carr 7; Rep. K. Gilbert, Rock 19

COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety

1 Resisting Arrest. Amend RSA 642:2 to read as follows:

642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest [or], detention, or protective custody of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2003.


What do you think about this? They are trying to add this wording into the statute to include someone being taken into protective custody...

The only two incidents I could think of when this would be used is if a LEO responded to a situation where a kid or a spouse needed to be removed from a home for their safety and tried to stay where they were... It seems wrong to me to cite them for something if you are going to save them, doesn't it?

Am I looking at this wrong?

[Ray]

I like NC:
"If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor"

Covers most everything

[PeteBroccolo]

Who says you HAVE to lay a charge? If a person MUST be physically removed by the Police to protect themselves, or someone else, then there SHOULD be a lawful authority for the Police to take that action AND to compel the person to comply. But, you wouldn't necessarily need to charge them. Discretionary, limited use of such a charge would seem best.

[Stone]

That makes sense...

I guess I am more shocked that their is the need for it than anything.

[4n6det]

I read that as anyone interfering with an arrest or protective custody, not just the person in protective custody. For example we took three kids into protective custody in a house and the aunt was hanging off of my arm trying to pull me back. We don't have anything to charge her under like that and it sure didn't qualify as a PA simple assault. That would have been helpful in that case or something like it.

Maybe I misunderstood, but that is how I would interpret it if it were a PA law.

You can remove a spouse/significant other from a house under protective custody?? That would be a good one to have too. PA sucks, too many liberals in the court system making REALLY stupid decisions.

[Zamboni]

I think you guys have the wrong idea of what protective custody means.

Protective custody is when you essentially arrest someone who is a danger to themselves or others. For instance someone just swallowed a bottle of pills and is refusing medical treatment. Or they are having major schizo delusions and pose a risk to hurt themselves or someone else. Usually it applies to suicidal or severely mentally ill people.

[Niteshift]

I have no problem with the proposed law. It makes sense to me.