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?
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?
Comment