§ 904. Resisting or interfering with an officer.
(a) General offense.--When an officer is in the performance of any duty required by this title, it is unlawful
for any person to interfere with or resist an arrest, inspection or investigation
of the officer by threat, force, menace, flight or obstruction. A violation of this
subsection is a summary offense of the first degree.
(b) Failure to produce identification upon demand.--
(1) A person who refuses to provide identification upon demand of an officer whose duty
it is to enforce this title after having been told by the officer that the person
is the subject of an official investigation or investigative detention, supported
by reasonable suspicion, commits a summary offense of the fifth degree.
(2) A person who provides false identification to an officer whose duty it is to enforce
this title for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or hindering apprehension or obstructing
an investigation commits a summary offense of the second degree.
(June 23, 2004, P.L.434, No.42, eff. 60 days; Oct. 7, 2010, P.L.474, No.64, eff. 60
days)
2010 Amendment. Act 64 amended subsec. (b)(1).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Ickes, 873 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2005).
· cites it 6× “The Commonwealth appeals from a Commonwealth Court order holding § 904 of the Pennsylvania Game Code, 34 Pa.C.S. § 904, unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Commonwealth v. Stahl, 4 Pa. D. & C.4th 321 (1989).
· cites it 4× “Stahl for failing to identify himself to a Pennsylvania Game Commission Officer in violation of 34 Pa.C.S. §904. Following a hearing before a district justice, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $800.”
Commonwealth v. Ickes, 798 A.2d 863 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Ickes (Ickes) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County (trial court) which found Ickes guilty of violating Section 904 of the Game and Wildlife Code (Code), 34 Pa. C.S. § 904. We reverse. On August 5, 1999, a district justice convicted Ickes of…”
Commonwealth v. Ickes, 844 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 2004).
“tion of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the statute does not require that the game officer have reasonable suspicion? Do the circumstances prevailing in the setting of game and wildlife regulation warrant a lower constitutional threshold to support…”
Commonwealth v. Ickes, 844 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 2004).
“of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the statute does not require that the game officer have reasonable suspicion? *253 Do the circumstances prevailing in the setting of game and wildlife regulation warrant a lower constitutional threshold to support…”
Com. v. Schwickrath, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant next framed his principal argument as “an 3 34 Pa.C.S. § 904(a). -3- J.S17037/16 ex post facto law problem” and argued his possession of firearms “became a crime in 1995 when the statute [18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Perez, 8 Pa. D. & C.5th 535 (2009).
“The officers then cited the defendant for violating 34 Pa.C.S. §904, “which requires a person to produce identification upon demand of a game officer.”
— 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 904(a) — 1 case
Com. v. Schwickrath, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant next framed his principal argument as “an 3 34 Pa.C.S. § 904(a). -3- J.S17037/16 ex post facto law problem” and argued his possession of firearms “became a crime in 1995 when the statute [18 Pa.”
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.