California Penal Code Section 69 deals with interfering with law enforcement officers. This charge is different from resisting arrest and focuses on two main actions: trying to stop an executive officer from doing their job using threats or violence, or using force or violence to resist an officer. This offense can be a misdemeanor or a felony, leading to serious and often misunderstood consequences.
Scope of the Offense
Under Penal Code Section 69, an “executive officer” includes police, sheriff’s deputies, and other government officials enforcing laws or carrying out public duties.1Justia. CALCRIM No. 2652: Resisting an Executive Officer in Performance of Duty (Pen. Code, § 69) (2025) For an offense to occur, the officer must be performing their duty at the time. These duties can range from making arrests and investigations to serving court orders and maintaining public order.
Essential Elements
For a conviction under Penal Code Section 69, the prosecution must prove certain elements, depending on the alleged actions.
If the charge is attempting to deter or prevent an officer, the prosecution must show the defendant willfully used a threat or violence. This must have been intended to stop an executive officer from performing a lawful duty. It also needs to be proven that the officer was an executive officer on duty, or the defendant reasonably believed so.
If the charge is knowingly resisting an officer with force or violence, the prosecution must prove the defendant willfully used such force or violence. The defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, the person was an executive officer performing official duties. The resistance must be active force or violence; passively resisting or verbally refusing to comply is not enough for this charge.
An important aspect is that the officer must have been lawfully performing their duties. If an officer acts unlawfully, such as by using excessive force, a person might have the right to reasonable self-defense, which could be a defense to the charge. Whether the officer acted lawfully is determined by the case’s specific facts.
Potential Penalties
Violating Penal Code Section 69 is a “wobbler,” meaning it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony.2California Legislative Information. Penal Code Section 69 The decision depends on the incident’s details, like the force used, and the defendant’s criminal history.
Misdemeanor penalties can include up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $10,000, and summary probation. Felony penalties are more severe, potentially leading to imprisonment for 16 months, two, or three years in county jail, a fine up to $10,000, and formal probation.
A felony conviction also has other major consequences. Convicted felons in California are usually banned from owning firearms for life.3California Department of Justice. Firearms Prohibiting Categories, Misdemeanors, and Conditions Any conviction, especially a felony, can affect employment and professional licenses.
If an officer is seriously injured or a deadly weapon is used, a conviction might count as a strike under California’s Three Strikes law, increasing penalties for future felonies.4San Diego County Public Defender. Three Strikes Law – A General Summary For non-U.S. citizens, a conviction can lead to immigration issues including deportation, denial of U.S. admission, or denial of naturalization.5Immigrant Defense Project. State-Specific Quick Reference Charts for Immigration Consequences of Criminal Offenses Courts may also order community service or victim restitution.6FindLaw. California Penal Code – PEN § 1202.4 (Restitution)
Factors That May Influence the Outcome
Several factors beyond the basic legal elements can affect the outcome of a Penal Code Section 69 case.
The specific nature and perceived severity of any alleged threat or violence are considered. Whether an injury resulted to the officer, while not a required element for the charge itself, can influence prosecutorial decisions on the seriousness of charges and how the case is viewed.
The defendant’s apparent intent at the time of the incident is important, particularly for charges involving an attempt to deter an officer. Evidence that might show intent includes the defendant’s words, actions before the alleged offense, and the overall context. Showing that actions were not intended to stop an officer from performing duties could affect the outcome.
The availability and clarity of objective evidence, such as footage from body-worn cameras, surveillance systems, or bystander recordings, often provide crucial insights. These recordings can support or challenge the accounts given by those involved, significantly influencing the understanding of events and the case’s resolution.