877-Ben-Hall 517-798-5801 877-Ben-Hall Awards & Recognition
In many criminal cases, a charge of resisting and obstructing is a strategic tool used by the state to transform a minor infraction into a felony-level negotiation.
Michigan law, specifically MCL 750.81d, classifies resisting, obstructing, or assaulting a police officer as a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Prosecutors frequently attach this charge to low-level misdemeanors, such as disorderly conduct, trespassing, or even traffic violations, to create immediate leverage.
The presence of a Resisting and Obstructing (R&O) charge shifts your priority from fighting a minor ticket to avoiding a felony record. The state knows that facing a felony makes a person more likely to accept a plea deal on the lesser charges. This effectively pressures you into waiving your right to challenge the initial, questionable arrest.
The prosecutor will likely frame the R&O charge as a necessary response to non-compliance, even if the resistance was verbal or passive. They present this as a standard procedure to protect officers, rather than what it is: a tactic to secure a conviction.
If you have been charged with Resisting and Obstructing alongside a minor offense in Michigan, we advise seeking legal counsel immediately. At Ben Hall Law, we will evaluate the body camera footage to determine if the charge is a valid allegation or a negotiating tactic, and we will build a defense to protect your future.
The core of the issue is a concept called overcharging. Prosecutors understand that a charge for a noise violation or public intoxication carries little weight and low penalties. A person facing such a minor charge might be perfectly willing to take their chances at trial, believing they have a strong case or that the potential punishment is minimal.
By adding a felony R&O charge, the stakes increase dramatically. You may no longer face a small fine or community service. Instead, you may face prison and the lifelong consequences of a felony conviction, including lost civil rights and damaged employment prospects. This pressure creates what some call a “trial tax,” where the risk of trial feels like punishment.
This tactic replaces logic with fear. When a felony appears on the table, the decision to fight a minor charge becomes much harder. Defendants may focus only on avoiding the worst possible outcome. As a result, even innocent people may feel pressure to accept a guilty plea.
However, this situation is often a bluff. In many cases, the prosecutor may not have strong evidence for the R&O charge. The felony often serves as leverage during negotiations. The offer may be simple: plead guilty to the original minor offense, and the prosecutor will dismiss the felony.
Although this may seem like an easy escape, it can still lead to an unfair conviction. In jurisdictions such as Ingham County or courts like the 54-A District Court, this tactic can appear in cases involving college students or incidents in East Lansing nightlife. Recognizing this strategy is often the first step in resisting pressure to accept a plea.
When an arrest involves physical force by the police, R&O charges almost invariably follow. This is not a coincidence. The R&O charge serves as a cover charge, which is a preemptive justification for an officer’s use of force.
If an officer tackles a suspect, uses a Taser, or causes an injury during a minor stop, they must explain that escalation in their official report. Charging the individual with resisting provides a convenient narrative: “I had to use force because the suspect was resisting arrest.” It shifts the focus from the officer’s actions to yours, making the force seem like a necessary reaction rather than an unprovoked escalation.
Data from California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Board, for instance, shows a high volume of cases where resisting arrest is the sole charge, stemming from minor pedestrian or traffic violations. This suggests the resistance charge itself is what justifies the arrest, not the initial infraction. The charge is added after the fact to clean up a messy or legally questionable interaction.
This is where a detailed analysis of evidence becomes essential, especially body-worn camera footage. A police report might claim a suspect took a fighting stance, but the video might reveal a person simply pulling away instinctively from a painful wrist lock.
When the force used was unreasonable, the R&O charge might fail because the officer was not acting in the “lawful performance of their duty.”
The phrase resisting and obstructing may suggest a physical struggle with police, but Michigan law defines it much more broadly.
The controlling statute, MCL 750.81d, lists many prohibited actions. It includes assaulting or battering an officer, as well as “obstructing, resisting, opposing, challenging, or interfering” with an officer performing official duties. This broad language gives police and prosecutors significant discretion.
One of the most common ways people are charged is by allegedly failing to obey a lawful command. This might be something as simple as walking away when an officer tells you to stop or refusing to exit your vehicle during a lawful traffic stop.
The command must be lawful, but the tense moments of a police interaction are not the time to debate that legality. Any hesitation or refusal could be misinterpreted as a felony charge of obstruction.
Michigan law does not require physical violence for a resisting and obstructing charge. Even passive actions may lead to a felony charge. For example, going limp and forcing officers to carry you is a common example of passive resistance. However, the law should distinguish between criminal obstruction and simple hesitation or confusion. A brief delay while asking, “Why am I being arrested?” should not amount to a felony. Unfortunately, police and prosecutors sometimes blur this line, charging first and leaving the defense to address it later.
Police officers hold significant authority, but they are also human. As a result, feelings of disrespect or challenges to authority can sometimes affect how an encounter unfolds. In some situations, a resisting and obstructing charge may reflect frustration rather than a genuine threat to officer safety. This situation is often described as “contempt of cop.”
These arrests often arise when someone exercises legal rights in a way an officer finds irritating or disrespectful. For example, questioning an officer’s actions or refusing to answer questions may escalate an encounter.
When an officer feels their authority is challenged, they may look for a reason to make an arrest. The broad language of the resisting and obstructing statute can make this easier. As a result, the charge may become a tool to punish perceived dissent and restore control. In some cases, a prosecutor may support the officer’s decision to maintain a working relationship with the department, even when the evidence of actual obstruction is weak.
A strong defense focuses on separating disrespect from criminal conduct. Arguing with an officer is not a crime, and being rude is not a crime. We require the prosecution to prove that your actions physically interfered with the officer’s ability to perform a lawful duty, not merely that the officer felt disrespected.
Sometimes, an R&O charge is added to salvage a case that started with an illegal police stop. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, meaning an officer must have a certain level of justification to stop you.
An officer needs probable cause to make an arrest, which means having concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed. For a brief detention, they need “reasonable suspicion,” which is more than a hunch, but less than probable cause. If an officer stops someone based on a hunch, racial profiling, or a vague suspicion, that stop is illegal.
Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence found as a result of an illegal stop, such as drugs or weapons, is generally inadmissible in court. A skilled defense attorney may file a motion to suppress the evidence, leading to a dismissal of the charges.
However, there’s a catch. If you resist the illegal stop, even by pulling your arm away, prosecutors will argue that you committed a new crime. They will contend that even if the evidence from the bad stop gets thrown out, the R&O charge should stick.
This is where Michigan law offers a unique and powerful defense. In the landmark case People v. Moreno, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that citizens have a common-law right to resist an unlawfulle=”font-weight: 400;”> arrest. In other words, unlike many other states that have abolished this right, Michigan still allows a person to use reasonable force to defend themselves against illegal police conduct.
Although prosecutors may add an R&O charge in many situations, certain groups appear to face these charges more often. Policing data suggests the charges are not always applied evenly.
Reports from jurisdictions such as California highlight broader national patterns.
The data often shows higher charging rates for individuals with perceived mental health disabilities. During a mental health crisis, a person may feel confused, frightened, or unable to process commands quickly. Officers may interpret this behavior as defiance or obstruction rather than a medical issue. As a result, a situation that requires help may instead lead to criminal charges.
Young people also face these charges frequently, especially in college towns like East Lansing. In crowded environments such as parties, protests, or busy downtown areas, people may struggle to hear or understand commands. An officer’s order to disperse may be lost in the noise. However, failure to comply immediately may still lead to an R&O charge. In these situations, the charge can become a tool to control crowds.
Another warning sign appears when resisting and obstructing becomes the only charge filed. </span>If the initial encounter involved no criminal activity, but the interaction escalated into an R&O arrest, the circumstances deserve careful <span class=”BZ_Pyq_fadeIn”>review. These cases often require close scrutiny because they may reveal improper use of authority.
Yes. In Michigan, the R&O statute is very broad. It includes any obstruction, interference, or failure to comply with a lawful command. Physical contact or violence is not required to be charged with this felony.
<span style=”font-weight: 400;”&gt;Yes. Under MCL 750.81d, it is a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison, with even longer sentences if an officer is injured. This is a significant distinction from many other states where similar conduct would be a misdemeanor.
The law requires that you knew, or had reason to know, the person you were dealing with was a police officer performing their duties. If an officer was in plain clothes and did not announce their identity, it provides a strong defense that you could not have knowingly resisted them.
Yes. It is common for prosecutors to review a case and add charges later in the process. They sometimes add an R&O charge after reviewing body camera footage or during plea negotiations specifically to increase their leverage and pressure you into a deal.
Generally, no. Speech alone is usually protected by the First Amendment. However, speech combined with actions that interfere with an officer’s duties may cross into obstruction. For example, yelling in an officer’s face to block an interview with a witness could create legal risk.
The charges filed against you are not the final outcome. Instead, they often represent the opening move in a legal strategy. Prosecutors sometimes add resisting and obstructing charges to minor offenses. This tactic raises the risk of a felony conviction and pressures defendants to accept unfavorable outcomes.
However, we do not allow the state to use fear as leverage. Our defense focuses on closely reviewing the police report and the prosecutor’s complaint. We examine whether the initial stop was lawful, whether the officer’s actions were reasonable, and what actually occurred.
Do not attempt to negotiate your freedom alone. Contact Ben Hall Law for a confidential case review. We will investigate whether the stop was lawful, whether the charges are inflated, and what steps may help protect your >record.
