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 rise exponentially. Suddenly, you are no longer looking at a small fine or a few days of community service; you are now facing a prison sentence and the lifelong consequences of being a convicted felon, including the loss of civil rights and severe damage to employment prospects. This creates what is sometimes called a trial tax, where the risk of going to trial becomes so immense that it feels like a punishment in itself.
This tactic is designed to replace logic with fear. When a felony is on the table, the rational calculation of fighting a minor charge evaporates, replaced by the urgent need to avoid the worst-case scenario. It is a powerful form of coercion that pressures even innocent people into pleading guilty.
However, understand that this is frequently a bluff. The prosecutor may not have a strong case for the R&O charge and may have no real intention of taking it to trial. The felony is a bargaining chip. The offer is simple: plead guilty to the original minor offense, and the prosecutor will drop the felony. This presents a tempting escape route, but it’s one that leads to an unjust conviction. In jurisdictions like Ingham County or courts like the 54-A District Court, this pattern is common, particularly in cases involving college students or incidents in East Lansing’s nightlife. Recognizing this as a leverage tactic is the first step toward refusing to be bullied into 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 term resisting and obstructing might conjure images of a physical fight with police, but the legal definition in Michigan is far broader.
The controlling statute, MCL 750.81d, lists a wide range of prohibited actions. It includes assaulting or battering an officer, as well as “obstructing, resisting, opposing, challenging, or interfering” with an officer you know is performing their duties. This vague language gives police and prosecutors significant leeway.
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 an R&O charge. Actions that are purely passive may still lead to a felony conviction.
For example, going limp and forcing officers to carry you is a classic form of passive resistance that is frequently charged. However, a line must be drawn between criminal obstruction and simple hesitation or confusion. A momentary delay while you ask, “Why am I being arrested?” should not constitute a felony. Unfortunately, police and prosecutors blur this line, charging first and leaving it to the defense to sort out later.
Police officers are granted immense authority, but they are also human. Like anyone, they might be affected by feelings of disrespect or challenges to their authority. To be frank, sometimes a Resisting and Obstructing charge has less to do with a genuine threat to safety and more to do with an officer’s bruised ego. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as being arrested for contempt of cop.
These arrests frequently arise from situations where a citizen exercises their rights in a way an officer finds irritating or disrespectful.
When an officer feels their authority is being undermined, they may search for a reason to make an arrest. The broad and vague nature of the R&O statute provides a convenient, all-purpose tool, and thus, the charge becomes a way to punish dissent and reassert control. The prosecutor might then feel obligated to back the officer’s decision to maintain a strong relationship with the police department, even if the evidence of actual obstruction is paper-thin.
A strong defense in these cases involves separating disrespect from a criminal act. Arguing with an officer is not a crime. Being rude is not a crime. We force the prosecutor to prove that your actions physically interfered with the officer’s ability to perform a lawful duty—not just 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 unlawful 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.
While an R&O charge might be added in any case, data suggests that certain groups of people are disproportionately affected. By examining policing trends, we see that these charges are not always applied evenly.
Reports from jurisdictions like California provide a window into these national trends. The data consistently shows that individuals with perceived mental health disabilities are charged with resisting at a much higher rate. A person experiencing a mental health crisis may be confused, frightened, or unable to process commands quickly. This behavior is misinterpreted by law enforcement as willful defiance or obstruction rather than a symptom of a medical issue. The result is a criminal charge for what is, in reality, a cry for help.
Young people are also frequently targeted, especially in college towns like East Lansing. In chaotic environments such as parties, protests, or crowded downtown areas, verbal commands are difficult to hear or understand. An officer’s order to disperse may be lost in the noise, but the failure to comply immediately is used to justify an R&O charge. It becomes a catch-all for controlling crowds and punishing anyone who does not show instant deference.
One of the most telling signs of a manufactured R&O charge is when it is the only charge filed. If the initial interaction was non-criminal, but it escalated to the point where an arrest for resisting was made, it strongly suggests that the officer’s own actions created the offense. These sole charge cases demand intense scrutiny, as they reveal an abuse 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.
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. Your speech is protected by the First Amendment. However, if your words are combined with actions that physically interfere with an officer’s ability to perform their duties, such as screaming in their face to prevent them from interviewing a witness, it might cross the line into obstruction.
The charges filed against you are not the final verdict. They are the opening move in a strategic process. Prosecutors add resisting and obstructing charges to minor offenses because it works, introducing the terrifying possibility of a felony conviction and scaring defendants into accepting outcomes they shouldn’t.
We do not let the state use your fear as a weapon. Our practice focuses on peeling back the layers of the police report and the prosecutor’s complaint. We analyze the legality of the initial stop, the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct, and the reality of yours.
Do not try to negotiate your freedom alone. Call Ben Hall Law today for a confidential case review. We will investigate if the stop was lawful, if the charges are inflated, and what it will take to keep your record clean.
