(a)(1)Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(2)Except as provided by subdivision (d) of Section 653t, every person who knowingly and maliciously interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with the transmission of a communication over a public safety radio frequency shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes any weapon, other than a firearm, from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(c)Every
person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(d)Except as provided in subdivision (c) and notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 489, every person who removes or takes without intent to permanently deprive, or who attempts to remove or take a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is engaged in the performance of his or her lawful duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
In order to prove a violation of this subdivision, the prosecution shall establish that the defendant had the specific intent to remove or take the firearm by
demonstrating that any of the following direct, but ineffectual, acts occurred:
(1)The officer’s holster strap was unfastened by the defendant.
(2)The firearm was partially removed from the officer’s holster by the defendant.
(3)The firearm safety was released by the defendant.
(4)An independent witness corroborates that the defendant stated that he or she intended to remove the firearm and the defendant actually touched the firearm.
(5)An independent witness corroborates that the defendant actually had his or her hand on the firearm and tried to take the firearm away from the officer who was holding it.
(6)The
defendant’s fingerprint was found on the firearm or holster.
(7)Physical evidence authenticated by a scientifically verifiable procedure established that the defendant touched the firearm.
(8)In the course of any struggle, the officer’s firearm fell and the defendant attempted to pick it up.
(e)A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) in addition to a conviction of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) when the resistance, delay, or obstruction, and the removal or taking of the weapon or firearm or attempt thereof, was committed against the same public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician. A person may be convicted of multiple violations of this section if more than one public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician are victims.
(f)This section shall not apply if the public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician is disarmed while engaged in a criminal act.
(g)The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a), nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person.
Notes of Decisions
Javier Vanegas v. City of Pasadena, 46 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 22× “At that point, the detective had probable cause to arrest for either offense and he had probable cause to arrest for violating Cal. Pen. Code § 148 (a)(1) when plaintiff refused to disclose his name.”
People v. Kelly, 146 P.3d 547 (Cal. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The jury found defendant guilty of one felony count of driving under the influence of alcohol after having been convicted of a felony within 10 years (Veh.”
Shafer v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, the jury found that Deputy Padilla had probable cause to arrest Shafer for violations of California Penal Code section 148. The jury also found that Shafer’s speech was not a substantial or motivating factor for Deputy Padilla’s actions against Shafer and that…”
Gabbi Lemos v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 40 F.4th 1002 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 6× “Cal. Penal Code § 148 (a)(1). “But,” the majority reasons, “crucially, the jury was told that it could find Lemos guilty based on any one of four acts she committed during the course of her interaction with Holton.”
Alejandro Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 7× “OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: Alejandro Velazquez' was arrested in front of his home in Long Beach, California, for violating California Penal Code § 148, which prohibits resisting or obstructing a police officer.”
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 11× “We held: “Excessive force used after an arrest is made does not destroy the lawfulness of the arrest” for a violation of California Penal Code § 148. Id. at 1120 (emphasis added).”
Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “(f)) and resisting an officer in the discharge of his duties (Pen.Code, § 148, subd. (a)). The complaint was later amended to add charges including battery on a peace officer.”
People v. M.M., 278 P.3d 1221 (Cal. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (section 148(a)(1)) makes it a misdemeanor to “willfully resist[], delay[], or obstruct!] any public officer, peace officer, or .”
Young v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Second, after exiting his truck to provide Wells with his registration, Young refused Wells’s instructions to re-enter the truck, insisting on sitting on the curb and eating his broccoli instead, thus committing the misdemeanor offense of interfering with a peace office in…”
Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3 (2013).
· cites it 2× “Stanton believed that Patrick had committed a jailable misdemeanor under California Penal Code § 148 by disobeying his order to stop; * Stanton also "fear [ed] for [his] safety.”
Stephen Hill v. City of Fountain Valley, 70 F.4th 507 (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 5× “CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY have probable cause, there were no exigent circumstances and it was clearly established, among other things, that at the time “even an outright refusal to cooperate with police officers” did not justify a warrantless arrest for a violation of California…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(A) — 1 case
Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“(f)) and resisting an officer in the discharge of his duties (Pen.Code, § 148, subd. (a)). The complaint was later amended to add charges including battery on a peace officer.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(A)(1) — 3 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(a) — 41 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) — 122 cases
Javier Vanegas v. City of Pasadena, 46 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022).
“At that point, the detective had probable cause to arrest for either offense and he had probable cause to arrest for violating Cal. Pen. Code § 148 (a)(1) when plaintiff refused to disclose his name.”
Gabbi Lemos v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 40 F.4th 1002 (9th Cir. 2022).
“Cal. Penal Code § 148 (a)(1). “But,” the majority reasons, “crucially, the jury was told that it could find Lemos guilty based on any one of four acts she committed during the course of her interaction with Holton.”
Alejandro Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2015).
“OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: Alejandro Velazquez' was arrested in front of his home in Long Beach, California, for violating California Penal Code § 148, which prohibits resisting or obstructing a police officer.”
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
“We held: “Excessive force used after an arrest is made does not destroy the lawfulness of the arrest” for a violation of California Penal Code § 148. Id. at 1120 (emphasis added).”
Young v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Second, after exiting his truck to provide Wells with his registration, Young refused Wells’s instructions to re-enter the truck, insisting on sitting on the curb and eating his broccoli instead, thus committing the misdemeanor offense of interfering with a peace office in…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(b) — 1 case
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(d) — 2 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 148(g) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.