CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Criminal Law and EvidencePolicing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Law and Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resistance Is Futile: The Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest in an Era of Aggressive Policing

Hemmens, Craig, Levin, Daniel·2000·Crime & Delinquency
DOI 10.1177/0011128700046004004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The police are relying on more aggressive tactics in their effort to fight crime. A common complaint regarding these tactics is that innocent persons are sometimes subjected to unlawful arrest. At common law, there was a right to resist an illegal arrest. The modern trend, however, has been to eliminate the right to resist. Abrogation of the common law right is based on several factors, including the development of modern criminal procedure, the ability to seek redress via other means, and the belief that violence should not be encouraged. This article examines the history and current status of the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The authors argue that attacks on the common law right are based on a misunderstanding of the original justifications for the right and that there remains a great need for the right particularly as new police tactics increase the probability of arbitrary assertions of authority.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0011128700046004004

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Modern status of rules as to right to resist illegal arrest
  2. Bast, C. M., 1997, Criminal Law Bulletin, 33, 457
  3. 10.2307/3096929 · DOI
  4. Harris, D.A., 1994, Indiana Law Journal, 69, 659
  5. Harris, D. A., 1998, The George Washington Law Review, 66, 557
  6. Hearne, T. J., 1975, Missouri Law Review, 43, 744
  7. Hochanadel, M., 1966, Tulsa Law Journal, 3, 40
  8. Kahan, D.M., 1998, The Georgetown Law Journal, 86, 1153
  9. LaFave, W .R., A treatise on the Fourth Amendment
  10. Livingston, D., 1998, The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1998, 261
  11. Maclin, T., 1998, Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, 333
  12. Model Penal Code
  13. Sklansky, D. A., The Supreme Court review 1997, 273
  14. Skolnick, J. H., 1998, St. John's Law Review, 72, 1265
  15. Smith, R. D., 1967, Natural Resources Journal, 7, 119
  16. Uniform Arrest Act

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hemmens, C., & Levin, D.
ORCID
Hemmens, Craig
Venue
Crime & Delinquency
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-10
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
472-496
ISSN
  • 0011-1287 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-387X
DOI
10.1177/0011128700046004004
OpenAlex
W1991098385
Cited by
22
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
11.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Crime & Delinquency (publishedVersion)
  • BearWorks (Missouri State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
Keywords
police brutality, aggressive policing, common law, criminal procedure, redress, self-defense

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review