Search The Library's Lexicon
In People v. Lopez, the California Court of Appeals found that "[b]efore one can be found culpable [for resisting arrest under section 148] . . . he or she must know, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the person attempting to make the arrest is an officer." 188 Cal. App. 3d 592, 599 (1986).
It is well established under California law that even "an outright refusal to cooperate with police officers cannot create adequate grounds for [police] intrusion" without more. People v. Bower, 24 Cal. 3d 638, 649 (1979).
Furthermore, in People v. Cressey, 2 Cal. 3d 836, 841 n.6 (1970), the California Supreme Court stated that the refusal to open a door upon a proper police request, was not a violation of section 148. Any reasonable officer would have known that they needed more than hesitation to arrest someone. Cf. People v. Wetzel, 11 Cal. 3d 104, 107-109 (1974) (defendant who stood in doorway of apartment and refused to allow officers to enter did not violate section 148).
In People v. Quiroga, 16 Cal. App. 4th 961, 964 (1993), review denied, 1993 Cal Lexis 5279 (Sept. 30, 1993) the court found: "[I]t surely cannot be supposed that Penal Code section 148 criminalizes a person's failure to respond with alacrity to police orders." Id. at 966.