PA Supreme Court Clarifies “Substantial Force” in Resisting Arrest Cases
Posted in General on June 26, 2025
In Commonwealth v. Crosby, 30 WAP 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the Resisting Arrest statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 5104) and clarified what “substantial force” means to uphold a conviction.
🔑 Legal Question
What does it mean to “employ…means justifying or requiring substantial force to overcome the resistance” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104 [resisting arrest]?
Crosby was arrested after a 2020 rollover accident; showed signs of marijuana use; resisted handcuffing and struggled, prompting an officer to tackle him and deploy a taser “dry stun”.
🧠 Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Clear statutory framework: Conviction requires (1) intent to prevent a lawful arrest, (2) using means justifying/requiring force, and (3) the force must be substantial. What qualifies as “substantial” depends on context—officer strength, arrestee size, environment—and is for fact‑finders to evaluate
Officer’s response not dispositive: It doesn’t matter how much force officers actually used—only what level of force Crosby’s resistance justified or required.
Overruling “minor scuffle” precedent: The Court rejected Rainey’s carve‑out exemption for minor scuffles, declaring it at odds with the statute’s plain language.
Application to Crosby: Tackling Crosby and deploying a taser clearly constituted substantial force justified by his resistance.
✅ Final Holding
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Crosby’s resisting arrest conviction and overruled any “minor scuffle” exceptions. Resisting arrest convictions now hinge on whether the resistance justified or required substantial force—decisions best suited for factfinders, not appellate conjecture.