Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53a — PENAL CODE · Chapter 951 — Penal Code: Statutory Construction; Principles of Criminal Liability
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-23 (2026)

Use of physical force to resist arrest not justified

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether such arrest is legal or illegal.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 22; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 9; P.A. 05-180, S. 3; P.A. 08-150, S. 51; P.A. 10-36, S. 17; P.A. 19-108, S. 5; P.A. 22-117, S. 11.)

History: 1971 act deleted definition of peace officer; P.A. 05-180 included a special policeman appointed under Sec. 29-18b within purview of section; P.A. 08-150 included Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under Sec. 14-8 and certified pursuant to Sec. 7-294d within purview of section; P.A. 10-36 replaced “Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed” with “motor vehicle inspector designated” and made technical changes, effective July 1, 2010; P.A. 19-108 deleted reference to motor vehicle inspectors, and made a technical change; P.A. 22-117 deleted reference to special policeman appointed under Sec. 29-18b, effective May 27, 2022.

Cited. 170 C. 99. Defendant is entitled to a theory of defense instruction as a matter of law when evidence under section is before jury. 178 C. 704. Cited. 191 C. 433; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75; 221 C. 788. Trial court's instructions pertaining to statute virtually eliminated state's burden of proving that the police officers were acting in the performance of their duties and had effect of depriving defendant of a defense to the charges against him, in violation of his due process rights. 261 C. 553.

Cited. 1 CA 709; 5 CA 616; 8 CA 153; Id., 667; 21 CA 326; 23 CA 615; 24 CA 195; Id., 473; judgment reversed in part, see 221 C. 788; 27 CA 49; 40 CA 601; 45 CA 390. Under section, illegality of an arrest is not a defense to charges under Sec. 53a-167c; statute was intended to require an arrestee to submit to an arrest, even though he believes, and may ultimately establish, that the arrest was without probable cause or was otherwise unlawful; it was not intended to require an arrestee to submit to egregiously unlawful conduct, such as an unprovoked assault, by the police in the course of an arrest, whether the arrest was legal or illegal. 79 CA 667.

Section restricts common-law right to resist illegal arrest; not applicable to prosecution under Sec. 53a-167a; unnecessary to decide whether this section creates exception to Sec. 53a-20 or common-law right to defend premises. 34 CS 531. Cited. 38 CS 364; Id., 400.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State v. Privitera, 476 A.2d 605 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Privitera, 476 A.2d 605 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984). · cites it 52× “ssly, engaged in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior an arrest would be proper, 4 and that if Green was acting to make an arrest on a reasonable belief that such a crime had been com *715 mitted, the defendant would not be justified in using any physical force against…”
State v. Gallagher, 465 A.2d 323 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 36× “Regarding the lawfulness of the officer's conduct, the court charged, quoting General Statutes § 53a-23: "A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether such arrest is legal or illegal.”
State v. Davis, 804 A.2d 781 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 20× “2 The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court: (1) improperly instructed the jury as to the interrelationship of General Statutes § 53a-23 3 and §§ 53a-167a (a) and 53a-167c (a) and, consequently, relieved the state of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt…”
State v. Brosnan, 608 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 13× “Gallagher, supra, 441 , General Statutes § 53a-23, 10 which prohibits the use of physical force to resist an arrest, whether legal or illegal, did not abrogate the defendant’s common law privilege to resist an illegal entry into the home.”
Odom v. Matteo, 772 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Conn. 2011). · cites it 8× “Maffeo further argues that his use of force was justified because Odom resisted his attempts to investigate traffic infractions and to arrest her in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-23 and Conn. Gen. Stat.”
State v. Casanova, 767 A.2d 1189 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “” 12 In the present case, whether Palmieri had entered the Casanova home in the performance of his duties *594 was part of a required element of the offense charged against the defendant.”
State v. Ortiz, 830 A.2d 802 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 9× “Specifically, the defendant argues that because the court failed to limit the effect of General Statutes § 53a-23, failed to explain the elements of assault of a peace officer and failed to explain the relationship between § 53a-23 and § 53a-167c, the state was relieved of its…”
State v. Vilchel, 963 A.2d 658 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had not instructed the jury to consider the common-law privilege to resist an unlawful entry into the home but had instructed the jury in accordance with General Statutes § 53a-23. 3 State v. Gallagher, supra, 440 .”
Anderson v. Comm'r of Corr., 201 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 5× “9 General Statutes § 53a-23 provides in relevant part: ‘‘A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer [or] special policeman appointed under section 29-18b .”
State v. Sitaras, 942 A.2d 1071 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 6× “44; concerning resisting arrest by physical force, which is applicable to General Statutes § 53a-23. [7] When the court charged the jury, it stated, in part: "[T]here are four words describing the ways interference may be committed.”
State v. Salters, 826 A.2d 202 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 7× “The defendant contends that our Supreme Court’s decision in Davis was fact bound and based solely on the fact that the peace officers were attempting to arrest the defendant in that case and the existence of General Statutes § 53a-23, which prohibits the use of physical force to…”
State v. Biller, 501 A.2d 1218 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 4× “2d 605 (1984), this court held that “the legality of the police officer’s conduct is not an element of the crime defined by General Statutes § 53a-167a (a), and that, in a prosecution under that statute, to the extent that the state’s case is based on the conduct of a police…”
Show all 42 citing 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.