18 U.S.C. § 2231

Assault or resistance

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, prevents, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of his duties with regard thereto or on account of the performance of such duties, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and—(b) Whoever, in committing any act in violation of this section, uses any deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 802; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 121, 253, 254, 628 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 65, 35 Stat. 1100; June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XI, § 18, 40 Stat. 230; May 18, 1934, ch. 299, §§ 1, 2, 48 Stat. 780, 781; Feb. 8, 1936, ch. 40, 49 Stat. 1105; June 26, 1936, ch. 830, title I, § 3, 49 Stat. 1940; Reorg. Plan No. II, § 4(f), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 Fed. Reg. 2731, 53 Stat. 1433; June 13, 1940, ch. 359, 54 Stat. 391).

Section consolidates section 628 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and the portion of section 121 of said title relating to resistance of persons authorized to make searches.

Punishment provided by section 121 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was $2,000 fine and imprisonment for 1 year. Section 628 of said title was part of Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, § 1, 40 Stat. 231, prescribing fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding 2 years for resisting service, execution of search warrant, or assaulting an officer.

Section 253 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., enumerated United States marshals, deputies, and assistants, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, and numerous other officers, the killing of whom is denounced as a Federal offense.

Section 254 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., denounced the assaulting of such officers and prescribed punishment therefor without regard to nature of duties involved or performed.

In other words sections 253 and 254 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were not limited to officers executing search warrants.

Officers enumerated in section 253 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were substantially all those who serve or execute search warrants. Therefore, the language and punishment under section 254 of said title constitute basis of this revised section. No change in legislative intent is involved, as the amendments of sections 253 and 254 of said title are the latest enactments.

The provisions of section 121 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to rescue of property from seizing officer or its destruction to prevent seizure, are incorporated in sections 2232 and 2233 of this title.

Minor changes were made in translation and phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(K), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $5,000”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(L), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: United States v. New York Telephone Co.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) scotus · cites it 2× “Title 18 U. S. C. § 2231 imposes criminal penalties on any person who "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, prevents, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants .”

United States v. Arthur Montour, A/K/A Kakwirakeron (1991) ca2 · cites it 4× “The first count alleged that from or about May 27,1989 until August 1, 1989, Montour participated in a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2231 (1988) — a conspiracy to interfere forcibly with the execution of search warrants, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade (2004) ca9 “2 : resisting arrest, 18 U.S.C. § 2231 ; various forms of “civil disorder,” 18 U.”

Brian Iverson v. United States (2020) ca8 “First, Congress did not simply use the term “search” alone but instead defined the relevant officials as those with the power to “execute searches.” When Congress uses the phrase “execute searches,” it “invariably refers to traditional investigatory searches.”

Erin Osmon v. United States (2023) ca4 “, dissenting) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 2231 (a), 2234, 3109, and 22 U.”

Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA (2019) ca3 “Execute Searches. The proviso does not use the word “search” alone; it refers to the power to “execute searches”—a term of art.”

United States v. Odeh (2008) ca2 “18 U.S.C. § 2231 (a) ("Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, prevents, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of his duties with regard thereto or…”

Michele Leuthauser v. USA (2023) ca9 “, dissenting) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2231 (a); id. § 2234; id. § 3109; 22 U.”

United States v. Anthony F. Delguyd and Santo Maimone (1976) ca6 “§ 2232 ; and Delguyd was also charged with resisting FBI agents while they attempted to execute the search warrant upon his person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2231 . The District Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether it should grant defendants’ motions to…”

James Stanley Pipes v. United States (1968) ca5 · cites it 2× “c) 18 U.S.C.A. § 2231 , interference with officer executing search warrant: Palmquist v.”

United States v. Wright (2017) dcd “Wright with one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2231 (a). 1st Indictment, ECF No.”

Mengert v. United States (2024) ca10 “, 18 U.S.C. § 2231 (a) (referring to “any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants”).”

Show all 27 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.