Kevin Kennedy represented the State of Tennessee for three years as a Davidson County prosecutor. He handled cases arising from arrests, traffic stops, searches, and confrontations with law enforcement. He understands how prosecutors evaluate officer testimony and body-worn camera footage and how important the exact sequence of events can be when deciding whether conduct legally amounts to resisting arrest.
Resisting arrest is often charged after a tense or chaotic encounter with police, sometimes alongside assault, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, evading arrest, or another underlying offense. But disagreement with an officer, verbal protest, or mere failure to cooperate does not automatically establish every element of the Tennessee statute. If you are charged with resisting arrest in Nashville or Middle Tennessee, contact Kevin Kennedy Law Firm for a free, confidential consultation.
What Is Resisting Arrest in Tennessee?
Tennessee’s resisting statute is Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602. Under subsection (a), a person commits an offense by intentionally preventing or obstructing someone the person knows to be a law enforcement officer, or someone acting in an officer’s presence and at the officer’s direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or search of any person by using force against the officer or another person. The statute is broader than its common label of “resisting arrest,” but the State still must prove the required intent, knowledge, obstruction, and use of force.
The State Must Prove Use of Force
A critical element is force. Tennessee appellate decisions distinguish active physical resistance from conduct that may amount only to noncompliance or passive resistance. Depending on the facts, pulling away, locking one’s arms, struggling to prevent handcuffing, or physically fighting officers may support the charge. By contrast, simply arguing, using profanity, refusing to walk, or becoming limp does not necessarily establish the force required by the statute. Body-worn camera footage can therefore be decisive.
Timing Matters
The alleged force must be connected to preventing or obstructing the officer from effecting the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or search. The chronology can matter when police describe conduct that occurred before, during, and after an arrest as one continuous event. A defense attorney should identify when officers exercised control, when handcuffs were applied, what physical action allegedly obstructed the process, and whether later conduct actually prevented the arrest or instead occurred after it was complete.
Knowledge and Intent
The statute requires intentional prevention or obstruction and knowledge that the person being resisted is a law enforcement officer, or someone acting at an officer’s direction. In a typical uniformed-police encounter, identity may not be disputed, but plainclothes officers, nighttime encounters, crowded scenes, and rapidly developing events can create factual questions. The State also must distinguish intentional resistance from instinctive movement, confusion, imbalance, pain responses, or physical actions that were not intended to obstruct police.
What Are the Penalties for Resisting Arrest?
A violation of § 39-16-602 is generally a Class B misdemeanor. A Class B misdemeanor is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to \$500. If the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search, or service of process, the offense is elevated to a Class A misdemeanor, which can carry up to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail and a fine of up to \$2,500 unless another provision applies.
Even when the resisting charge is a misdemeanor, the consequences can matter. A conviction can create a criminal record, affect employment and background checks, and complicate an underlying criminal case. Resisting allegations may also influence how prosecutors and judges view the entire police encounter. A thorough defense should therefore evaluate the resisting count independently rather than assuming it will simply follow the outcome of the original charge.
Common Defenses to Resisting Arrest Charges
Resisting-arrest cases frequently turn on objective video evidence and the legal distinction between active force and mere noncompliance. The defense should compare every officer’s report and testimony to the actual recording and to the statutory elements.
No Force Was Used
One of the most important defenses is that the accused did not use force against an officer or another person. Verbal objections, refusal to answer questions, profanity, or passive behavior are not automatically the same as force. If body-worn camera footage shows that officers were able to handcuff the accused without physical struggle, or that the alleged resistance consisted only of refusing to move, the evidence may not establish the statutory element.
No Intent to Prevent or Obstruct
Physical movement during an arrest can have explanations other than intentional resistance. A person may be off balance, reacting to pain, trying to protect an injured arm, confused by simultaneous commands, or moving reflexively when multiple officers grab the person. The defense should examine medical records, video, audio, officer commands, and the timing of movements to determine whether the State can prove intentional obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Alleged Conduct Happened After the Arrest Was Complete
The timing of the alleged force can be a significant issue. Conduct that occurs after officers have already completed the arrest may support some other charge depending on the facts, but it does not necessarily prove that the accused used force to prevent or obstruct the arrest itself. A frame-by-frame review of video can show when control was established, when handcuffs were secured, and what conduct happened afterward.
Unlawful Arrest Is Generally Not a Defense
Tennessee law specifically states that, except as provided by the self-defense statute, it is not a defense to a resisting prosecution that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or search was unlawful. This differs from Tennessee’s evading-arrest statute, which expressly recognizes unlawfulness of the attempted arrest as a defense. Even so, the legality of police conduct can remain relevant to suppression issues, constitutional claims, or self-defense questions in the limited circumstances recognized by law.
Challenge Officer Accounts With Video and Other Evidence
Resisting charges are often based on fast-moving physical encounters. Reports may use broad terms such as “struggled,” “tensed up,” or ’resisted.’ The defense should test those descriptions against body-worn cameras, dash cameras, surveillance footage, witness recordings, radio traffic, photographs, and medical evidence. Small differences in timing and movement can determine whether the statutory force element is actually present.
How Kevin Kennedy Defends Resisting Arrest Cases
Kevin begins by reconstructing the encounter from the first police contact through the completion of the arrest or search. He reviews body-worn camera footage closely, compares each officer’s account to what the video depicts, identifies the exact act the State claims constituted force, and evaluates whether that act actually prevented or obstructed police. He also examines the underlying reason for the encounter and any related charges.
His experience as a former prosecutor helps him evaluate how the State is likely to characterize the encounter and which contradictions or legal deficiencies may matter in negotiations or at trial. Depending on the evidence, the defense may argue that there was no force, no intentional obstruction, that the alleged conduct occurred after the arrest was complete, or that statements or evidence should be suppressed. If you are charged with resisting arrest in Nashville or Middle Tennessee, contact Kevin Kennedy Law Firm for a free, confidential consultation.
*Legal references: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-602, 39-11-611, and 40-35-111. This page is general information, not legal advice.*
Related Court, Probation & Obstruction Matters Charges
This charge is a Tennessee misdemeanor. For a broader overview of misdemeanor classes, General Sessions procedure, diversion and record consequences, see our Nashville misdemeanor lawyer hub.