By Nathan Cate, Nashville Criminal Defense Attorney | Cate Law
You were stopped by police, and things escalated. Maybe you pulled your arm away when an officer reached for your wrist. Maybe you asked questions instead of immediately complying. Maybe you ran. Now you are looking at a resisting arrest charge on top of whatever brought the officer to you in the first place — and you want to know what the state has to prove, what defenses exist, and how bad the penalties can get.
Resisting arrest charges in Tennessee are governed by Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-16-602, and they carry more legal complexity than most people expect. The statute does not simply punish “being difficult.” It requires the state to prove specific elements — including the use of force — and that requirement has been the basis for reversed convictions at the appellate level. I have tried forty-nine jury trials in Tennessee state courts and defended hundreds of cases where resisting arrest was added on top of the original charge. This post breaks down every element, penalty tier, and viable defense.
The Statute: Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-16-602
Tennessee’s resisting arrest statute is formally titled “Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search — Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.” The statute covers more ground than its common name suggests.
Under subsection (a), a person commits an offense by intentionally preventing or obstructing anyone known to that person to be a law enforcement officer — or anyone acting in an officer’s presence and at the officer’s direction — from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.
Subsection (b) extends the offense to preventing or obstructing an officer of the state or any person known to be a civil process server from serving or attempting to serve any legal writ or process.
Every word in that language matters. The state does not get a conviction by showing that someone was uncooperative, argumentative, or slow to comply. The statute demands proof of specific conduct meeting specific thresholds.
The Five Elements the State Must Prove
To convict on a resisting arrest charge under section 39-16-602(a), the prosecution must establish all five of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The defendant acted intentionally
This is a mens rea requirement. The defendant must have made a conscious choice to prevent or obstruct the officer. Accidental movements, involuntary reflexes, and physical responses caused by pain or confusion do not satisfy this element.
Tennessee defines “intentional” under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-11-106(a)(18) as acting with a conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Prosecutors must show the defendant wanted to prevent or obstruct, not merely that their body moved in a way the officer found inconvenient.
2. The defendant knew the person was a law enforcement officer
The statute requires that the person being obstructed was “known to the person to be a law enforcement officer.” This means the state must prove the defendant was aware they were dealing with a police officer, deputy, trooper, or someone acting under an officer’s direction.
Uniformed officers satisfy this element easily. But undercover encounters, plainclothes officers who do not identify themselves, and chaotic scenes where the defendant may not have seen a badge or heard an identification all create legitimate questions about whether this element is met. The state cannot assume awareness — it must prove it.
3. The officer was effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or search
The statute protects law enforcement officers in the performance of specific law enforcement functions — stops, frisks, halts, arrests, and searches. The officer must have been doing one of those things at the time of the alleged resistance. An officer engaged in casual conversation is not effecting an arrest. An officer who has not yet initiated a stop has not created the predicate for a resisting charge.
4. The defendant prevented or obstructed the officer
The defendant’s conduct must have had the effect of preventing or obstructing the officer’s actions. There must be a causal link between what the defendant did and the impediment to the officer’s law enforcement function. If the officer completed the arrest without meaningful interference, the “prevented or obstructed” element is weaker.
5. The defendant used force
This is the element that surprises most people and that the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has scrutinized most aggressively. The statute does not criminalize mere non-compliance. It requires “force against the law enforcement officer or another.”
Tennessee defines “force” under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-11-106(a)(12) as compulsion by the use of physical power or violence, and the statute directs that it shall be broadly construed. But “broadly construed” does not mean limitless. Verbal refusal alone is not force. Passive weight — going limp — has been a contested question. And the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a conviction in State v. David Alexander Hayes (December 2024) where the defendant was on his stomach with three officers in control of his body, yelling and refusing to comply, but the state offered no evidence of force used before the arrest was completed.
That case is instructive: the timing of the force matters. Force that occurs after an arrest is complete does not retroactively satisfy this element.
Passive Resistance vs. Active Resistance
One of the most important distinctions in Tennessee resisting arrest cases is the line between passive and active resistance. The statute’s force requirement draws this line, and it matters enormously for defense strategy.
Passive resistance
Passive resistance includes going limp, refusing to stand or walk, locking your arms at your sides, turning away from the officer, or verbally refusing commands. These actions make an officer’s job harder, but they do not involve the application of physical power or violence against the officer.
Whether passive resistance satisfies the “force” element under section 39-16-602 is a fact-intensive question that Tennessee courts have not resolved with a single bright-line rule. The Hayes decision suggests that verbal refusal and non-movement, even when officers are actively trying to control the defendant, may not constitute force as the statute requires.
A strong criminal defense attorney will argue that passive resistance, standing alone, does not meet the force element. The state must show that the defendant applied physical power against the officer — not just that the defendant failed to assist the officer.
Active resistance
Active resistance includes pulling away from an officer’s grip, pushing an officer, kicking during handcuffing, tensing arms to prevent handcuffing, running from an officer who is attempting an arrest, or striking an officer. These actions involve the application of force and more clearly fall within the statute’s language.
Tennessee courts have found sufficient evidence of force where defendants pulled their hands away from arresting officers and continued to resist during handcuffing, locked their arms to prevent officers from applying handcuffs, and physically wrestled with officers.
The practical line: if the defendant’s body moved against the officer’s body or grip, the state has a stronger argument for force. If the defendant’s body simply did not move, the argument is weaker.
The Unlawful Arrest Defense — and Why Tennessee Limits It
Many people assume that if the underlying arrest was illegal, they cannot be convicted of resisting it. Tennessee law says otherwise, with a narrow exception.
The general rule: illegality of the arrest is not a defense
Section 39-16-602(c) states explicitly: except as provided in section 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, or search was unlawful.
This is a deliberate legislative choice. Tennessee’s position is that when a person knows they are dealing with a law enforcement officer, the proper remedy for an unlawful arrest is a suppression motion in court — not physical resistance on the street. The courts will sort out legality after the fact. In the moment, the law requires submission to apparent authority.
The rationale: allowing resistance to arrests perceived as unlawful would lead to dangerous street-level confrontations. The legislature decided that the courtroom, not the sidewalk, is where legality gets determined.
The narrow exception: excessive force by the officer
The one exception is found in Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-11-611, Tennessee’s self-defense statute. A person may use force against a law enforcement officer if two conditions are both met:
First, the officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt.
Second, the person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the officer’s excessive force.
Both conditions must be satisfied. A defendant who fights back against an officer using proportional force does not qualify. A defendant who retaliates after the excessive force has stopped does not qualify. The defense is limited to the narrow window where an officer’s force has crossed the line and the defendant’s response is both reasonable and immediate.
This is a difficult defense to establish, and juries are skeptical of it. But it exists, and in cases involving documented excessive force — body camera footage, witness testimony, visible injuries inconsistent with the defendant’s resistance — it can be viable.
Evading Arrest: The Related but Separate Offense
Resisting arrest and evading arrest are different charges under different statutes, and the penalties diverge sharply.
Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-16-603 — Evading Arrest
Evading arrest covers flight from an officer. Under subsection (a), a person commits the offense by intentionally fleeing from anyone the person knows to be a law enforcement officer when the officer has made a lawful stop and the person is under the officer’s temporary detention or a lawful arrest.
Under subsection (b), evading arrest in a motor vehicle is a separate and more serious offense. A person commits vehicular evading when they intentionally flee or attempt to elude a law enforcement officer after the officer has given a signal to bring the vehicle to a stop — whether by hand, voice, siren, or light.
Penalty tiers for evading arrest
The penalties escalate based on the method and consequences of the flight:
On foot (subsection a): Class A misdemeanor — up to 11 months, 29 days in jail and up to $2,500 in fines.
In a motor vehicle (subsection b): Class E felony — 1 to 2 years for a Range I standard offender, with a mandatory minimum of 30 days confinement. This is a felony conviction on your record.
Vehicular evasion creating risk of death or injury: If the flight creates a risk of death or injury to bystanders, pursuing officers, or third parties, the charge becomes a Class D felony — 2 to 4 years for a Range I offender, with a mandatory minimum of 60 days.
Evasion resulting in serious bodily injury to an officer: Class C felony — 3 to 6 years for a Range I offender.
Additionally, the court shall order suspension of the defendant’s driver license for six months to two years following a conviction for vehicular evading. And if the flight causes damage to government property — including a patrol car — the court shall order restitution to the appropriate government agency.
The critical distinction between resisting and evading
Resisting arrest requires force against the officer. Evading arrest requires flight from the officer. A person who stands in place and pushes an officer is resisting. A person who turns and runs is evading. A person who drives away from a traffic stop is committing vehicular evasion.
The charges carry very different weight. Resisting arrest is a Class B misdemeanor. Fleeing on foot is a Class A misdemeanor. Fleeing in a vehicle is a felony. The state picks the charge that matches the conduct — and sometimes charges both if the defendant first resisted and then fled.
Penalties for Resisting Arrest
Class B misdemeanor (standard resisting arrest)
The baseline offense under section 39-16-602 is a Class B misdemeanor, which carries:
- Up to 6 months in jail
- Up to $500 in fines
- A criminal record that shows a misdemeanor conviction
Class A misdemeanor (resisting with a deadly weapon)
If the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search, or service of process, the charge is elevated to a Class A misdemeanor:
- Up to 11 months, 29 days in jail
- Up to $2,500 in fines
- The deadly weapon enhancement makes diversion and favorable plea negotiations significantly harder
Practical sentencing consequences
On paper, a Class B misdemeanor looks minor. In practice, the consequences extend beyond the statutory maximum sentence:
A resisting arrest conviction creates a record that future employers, landlords, and licensing boards will see. It suggests to courts in future proceedings that the defendant is confrontational with law enforcement. It can be used at sentencing in later cases to argue for harsher punishment. And if the defendant is on probation or parole at the time, the new conviction can trigger a probation revocation.
How Resisting Arrest Stacks with Other Charges
Resisting arrest rarely appears as the only charge on a criminal docket. It is almost always added on top of the original offense that triggered the police encounter. Understanding this stacking pattern is critical because it affects plea negotiation strategy and trial defense.
Common charge stacking combinations
Resisting arrest + assault on an officer. If the resistance involved physical contact causing bodily injury, prosecutors often charge both resisting under section 39-16-602 and assault under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-101. Assault against a law enforcement officer carries fines up to $15,000. If serious bodily injury results, the charge can become aggravated assault — a felony.
Resisting arrest + disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-17-305 is a Class C misdemeanor and one of the most common companion charges. If the encounter involved yelling, threatening behavior, or conduct creating a public disturbance, prosecutors will add it. A lesser offense, but another conviction on your record.
Resisting arrest + evading arrest. When a defendant first resists physically and then flees, the state may charge both section 39-16-602 and section 39-16-603. This turns a Class B misdemeanor scenario into a potential felony if a vehicle was involved.
Resisting arrest + the underlying offense. DUI, domestic assault, drug possession, theft — whatever brought the officer to the scene becomes the anchor charge, with resisting added on top. Prosecutors use the resisting charge as plea leverage: drop it in exchange for a guilty plea on the primary offense, or use it to justify a harsher sentence recommendation.
The defense strategy problem with stacked charges
Stacked charges compound in front of a jury. Each additional charge reinforces the narrative that the defendant was out of control or deliberately obstructing law enforcement — even if the resisting charge is weak on the elements. A skilled defense attorney will evaluate whether the force requirement is met and whether a suppression motion targeting the underlying stop can eliminate the foundation for all the charges.
Defenses That Work in Tennessee Resisting Arrest Cases
Lack of force
The force element is the most fertile ground for defense. If the defendant’s conduct was passive — verbal refusal, going limp, failure to assist — the state may not be able to prove force. The Hayes decision reinforces this: verbal non-compliance and refusal to move, even during active police control, did not constitute sufficient force.
Lack of knowledge
If the defendant did not know they were dealing with a law enforcement officer, the second element fails. This arises with plainclothes officers, off-duty officers who did not identify themselves, or chaotic scenes where the defendant could not see a badge or hear identification.
No stop, arrest, or search was occurring
The officer must have been performing a specific law enforcement function at the time of the alleged resistance. If no stop, arrest, or search had been initiated, the predicate for the charge does not exist.
Involuntary conduct
Reflexive movements, medical conditions (seizure disorders, diabetic episodes), and physical responses to pain do not satisfy the intentionality requirement. Medical records and expert testimony can establish this defense.
Excessive force by the officer (self-defense under section 39-11-611)
When an officer uses greater force than necessary and the defendant reasonably believes immediate force is needed for self-protection, Tennessee law provides a defense. Difficult to win, but viable when body camera footage or independent witnesses document disproportionate force.
Constitutional challenges to the underlying stop
If the stop or arrest was unconstitutional — lacking probable cause or reasonable suspicion — a suppression motion can challenge the state’s entire case. While an unlawful arrest is not itself a defense to resisting, a successful suppression motion can eliminate the evidence the state needs to prove the encounter occurred at all. This is where experienced defense work at the first court appearance stage sets the tone for the entire case.
What to Do If You Are Facing a Resisting Arrest Charge
If you have been charged with resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, or evading arrest in Tennessee, the most important step is getting an attorney involved early. These charges may look straightforward on paper, but the element-by-element analysis — particularly the force requirement and the timing of the alleged resistance — often reveals weaknesses the state does not want to litigate.
Nathan Cate is a Nashville criminal defense attorney and court-qualified criminal defense expert witness who has tried forty-nine jury trials to verdict in Tennessee state courts, including ten outright Not Guilty acquittals. He defends resisting arrest, evading arrest, assault, and obstruction cases throughout Middle Tennessee — Davidson County, Williamson County, Rutherford County, Sumner County, Wilson County, and Maury County.
If you need to talk about your case, call (615) 664-8083 or visit catelaw.com to get started.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be convicted of resisting arrest if the arrest was illegal?
In most circumstances, yes. Section 39-16-602(c) states that the illegality of the stop, arrest, or search is not a defense. The legislature’s position is that legality gets determined in court, not on the street. The only exception is if the officer used excessive force and you reasonably believed immediate defensive force was necessary under section 39-11-611.
Is refusing to answer questions “resisting arrest”?
No. Verbal refusal to answer questions, standing alone, does not satisfy the force element of the statute. The Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent, and silence is not force. However, if verbal refusal escalates to physical resistance — pulling away, pushing, running — the analysis changes. The line is between words and physical conduct.
What is the difference between resisting arrest and evading arrest?
Resisting arrest under section 39-16-602 involves using force to prevent or obstruct an officer from completing a stop, arrest, or search. Evading arrest under section 39-16-603 involves fleeing from an officer. Resisting is a Class B misdemeanor. Evading on foot is a Class A misdemeanor. Evading in a motor vehicle is a Class E felony with a mandatory minimum of 30 days, and it can escalate to a Class D or Class C felony depending on the risk of harm and whether anyone was injured.
Can police add a resisting charge even if they dropped the original charge?
Yes. Resisting arrest is an independent offense. Even if the state declines to prosecute the DUI, the assault, or the drug possession, the resisting charge can proceed on its own. That said, if the underlying stop was unconstitutional, a successful suppression motion may undermine the state’s ability to prove the resisting charge as well.
Will a resisting arrest conviction go on my record?
Yes. A Class B misdemeanor conviction creates a permanent criminal record unless you later qualify for expungement. Tennessee allows expungement of certain misdemeanors after the sentence is completed, but eligibility depends on the offense and your history. A resisting conviction can affect employment, housing, professional licensing, and future sentencing.
Should I accept a plea deal on a resisting arrest charge?
That depends on the facts and the strength of the state’s evidence on each element. If the state cannot prove force, or if the underlying stop was constitutionally defective, trial may be the better path. If the evidence is strong and the plea avoids jail time, accepting the deal may be pragmatic. This requires evaluating the evidence with an experienced criminal defense attorney — not a decision to make based on a general rule.
Can resisting arrest be charged as a felony in Tennessee?
Standard resisting arrest under section 39-16-602 is a misdemeanor, even with the deadly weapon enhancement. However, if the resistance involves conduct that qualifies as a separate felony — aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, for example — the felony charge arises from the assault statute, not the resisting statute. Evading arrest in a vehicle under section 39-16-603 is a felony. Defendants sometimes face both a misdemeanor resisting charge and a felony evading or assault charge from the same encounter.
This post is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. If you are facing criminal charges in Tennessee, consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.