Is it legal to resist a citizens' arrest?

[robert_columbia]

Is it? Pick a jurisdiction that you like. Actual statutes or cases might be interesting.

Can a person be charged with “Resisting Arrest” for resisting a non-police Citizens’ Arrest, in a jurisdiction where a citizens arrest is legal? I’m primarily interested in whether or not you can be charged specifically with a resisting offense, rather than a situation where you could be charged with Assault for using inordinately severe self defense techniques, such as shooting an unarmed person who was attempting to “citizens arrest” you.

Does it ever depend on actual underlying guilt (e.g. if the citizen was trying to citizen’s arrest you for Possession of Meth and you resisted, you are only guilty of Resisting Arrest if you were actually guilty of Possession of Meth), or whether or not the underlying citizen’s arrest was lawful (e.g. whether the “arrester” had the requisite eyewitness knowledge to legally make a citizens arrest)?

I found this case

Man Arrested For Assault For Resisting Citizen's Arrest

But it looks like the charge was for Assault and not Resisting Arrest.

[FairyChatMom]

In Maryland (from a state website):

A citizen may arrest you without warrant if you have committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace or a felony in the citizen’s presence. A citizen’s arrest is only lawful if you have in fact committed the crime for which you are being arrested.

If you have been arrested by a private citizen and did not commit a crime, you may sue for unlawful arrest, even if the citizen had reason to believe you were guilty. However you may not sue property owners or merchants if they detained you because they believed you had wrongfully taken their property.

From a published paper:

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, almost every state, including Maryland, adopted the right to resist unlawful arrest. Since that time, however, the majority of states abolished the rule, claiming that it promotes violence. Ironically, the act once recognized by most American jurisdictions as an individual’s right is now considered a criminal violation.

Contrary to this modern trend, Maryland refuses to abolish the rule, and emphatically upheld the right to resist an unlawful, warrantless arrest in State v. Wiegmann. Nevertheless, other Maryland court decisions severely limit this right. What remains, therefore, is an opinion purporting to uphold a right that, in reality, has been practically extinguished by other case law.

Regarding this debate, some commentators argue that the right to resist an unlawful arrest is protected under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable” seizures. Alternatively, many jurists claim that the right, originally created for the protection of citizens, conflicts with the public policy of modern society by endangering the safety and lives of police officers, arrestees, and innocent bystanders.

For more than twenty years, Maryland courts acknowledged the latter argument and criticized the common-law right. These same courts, however, still refuse to abolish the rule, calling instead upon the Maryland Legislature for action. Yet, the Legislature has failed to act. …

Gee, I learned something today.

[antonio107]

We’re doing this in my first year torts class today at law school. The short answer seems to be yes, BUT if he has any halfway reasonable grounds for arresting you, even if you’re found innocent of crime, resisting and fighting will only make things worse. (I’m in Canada FWIW)