Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (2026)
Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search - Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement 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.
- (b) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.
- (c) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.
- (d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. William Charles Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. William Charles Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “See T.C.A. § 39-16-602 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant -to six months, with all but ten days suspended to supervised probation.”
State v. Walls, 62 S.W.3d 119 (Tenn. 2001). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (1997 & Supp.2001).”
Andrea Miller v. Woodston Maddox, 866 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2017). “Maddox points to no other evidence in the record supporting probable cause for resisting arrest, so we conclude that there is no probable cause to support the chatge against Miller for reckless driving in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 . 1 Maddox also accepts that…”
State v. Adams, 238 S.W.3d 313 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602. As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, to “obstruct” is to “hinder or prevent from progress.”
State v. Russell, 10 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (1997). 2 . Tenn.”
State v. Harris, 919 S.W.2d 619 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). “While it is a Class B misdemeanor "to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process," Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (c), (d) (1991 Repl.”
State of Tennessee v. Teddy Ray Mitchell, 343 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn. 2011). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (a) (2003); see also T.”
Linda Moser v. Etowah Police Dep't, 27 F.4th 1148 (6th Cir. 2022). “Moser was ultimately charged with, and pleaded guilty to, interfering with the arrest of another in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602 . Moser brought this action against the Etowah Police Department, Tim Davis, Austin Parton, Chief Armstrong, and the City of Etowah,…”
State v. Roberts, 106 S.W.3d 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Roberts contends that the Tennessee Constitution protects his actions, he argues that section 39-16-602(b) is unconstitutional, because it abolishes his right to resist an unlawful arrest.”
State v. Nelson, 23 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. 2000). “For this argument, the defendant relies on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-602(a) (1997) which makes it a criminal offense to intentionally prevent or obstruct a law enforcement officer “from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the…”
Purnell v. State, 827 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003). “Penal Law § 205.30 (McKinney 2003); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-223 (2002); Ohio Rev.”
Rich v. State, 44 A.3d 1063 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). “Codified Laws § 22-11-5 (2012); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602(a)-(b) (2012); see also Darrell A.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602(a) — 29 cases
State v. Adams, 238 S.W.3d 313 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602. As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, to “obstruct” is to “hinder or prevent from progress.”
State of Tennessee v. William Charles Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “See T.C.A. § 39-16-602 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant -to six months, with all but ten days suspended to supervised probation.”
State v. Russell, 10 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602 (1997). 2 . Tenn.”
State v. Nelson, 23 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. 2000). “For this argument, the defendant relies on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-602(a) (1997) which makes it a criminal offense to intentionally prevent or obstruct a law enforcement officer “from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the…”
Rich v. State, 44 A.3d 1063 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). “Codified Laws § 22-11-5 (2012); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-602(a)-(b) (2012); see also Darrell A.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602(b) — 6 cases
State v. Roberts, 106 S.W.3d 658 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Roberts contends that the Tennessee Constitution protects his actions, he argues that section 39-16-602(b) is unconstitutional, because it abolishes his right to resist an unlawful arrest.”
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Sue Skipper (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy L. Saxton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Dana Baker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State v. Jason Eric Bradburn (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602(b)(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Bonner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602(c) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. William Charles Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017). “See T.C.A. § 39-16-602 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant -to six months, with all but ten days suspended to supervised probation.”
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Sue Skipper (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
State of Tennessee v. Dana Baker (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602(d) — 2 cases
Brandon S. Massengill v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Lester Arnold Clouse (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
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.