The1893 Indiana Supreme Court decision in Plummer v. In practice, state, 136 Ind. 306, 36 N.Think about it: e. Also, 171, stands as a cornerstone in American jurisprudence regarding the right of a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest. While modern statutory frameworks have significantly modified the practical application of this ruling, the case remains a critical reference point for understanding the historical tension between state authority and individual liberty. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the facts, the legal reasoning, the famous "right to resist" doctrine, and the subsequent evolution of the law Simple as that..
The Historical Context and Facts of the Case
To understand Plummer, one must first appreciate the legal landscape of the late 19th century. During this era, the common law governed interactions between citizens and peace officers with far fewer statutory interventions than exist today. The concept of "qualified immunity" for police officers was virtually non-existent, and the legal system placed a premium on the sanctity of the person and the home.
The facts of Plummer are relatively straightforward but legally potent. In real terms, Jack Plummer, the appellant, was at his home in Washington County, Indiana, when Marshal Dorn, a town marshal, attempted to arrest him without a warrant. The alleged offense was a misdemeanor—specifically, a breach of the peace committed in the officer's presence. Even so, the evidence suggested the arrest was unlawful because the offense had not actually been committed in the officer's presence, a requirement for a warrantless misdemeanor arrest at common law.
During the attempted arrest, a physical struggle ensued. In the course of the resistance, Plummer used a knife, inflicting a wound upon Marshal Dorn from which the officer subsequently died. Plummer resisted the marshal's attempt to take him into custody. Plummer was indicted for murder, convicted of manslaughter in the trial court, and sentenced to the state prison But it adds up..
The central issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding Plummer’s right to resist an unlawful arrest and the degree of force permissible in that resistance Small thing, real impact..
The Indiana Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Writing for the court, Justice James Gavin delivered an opinion that articulated a strong defense of individual liberty rooted deeply in English common law traditions. The court reversed Plummer’s conviction, holding that the trial court’s instructions were erroneous because they failed to recognize the defendant's right to resist an illegal arrest.
The Common Law Foundation
The court traced the right to resist unlawful arrest back to the fundamental principles of the common law. It cited authoritative treatises and precedents, including Bad Elk v. United States (which would be decided by the U.S. That said, supreme Court seven years later, echoing similar sentiments) and classic English cases like Rex v. Day to day, tooley. The court emphasized that an arrest without legal authority is, in the eyes of the law, an assault and battery upon the person of the citizen And it works..
Justice Gavin wrote that a peace officer has no more right to arrest a citizen without legal process or legal cause than a private individual. When an officer acts without authority, he stands "on the same footing as a private individual" and is a trespasser. This means the citizen is under no legal obligation to submit to such an arrest.
Short version: it depends. Long version — keep reading.
The Right to Use Force
Perhaps the most cited portion of the Plummer opinion concerns the degree of force a citizen may use. The court held that a person may use such force as is reasonably necessary to resist an unlawful arrest. Crucially, the court drew a distinction between resisting an unlawful arrest and resisting a lawful one.
- Lawful Arrest: If the arrest is lawful, the citizen must submit. Resistance constitutes a crime (resisting arrest, assault, or murder/manslaughter if the officer is killed).
- Unlawful Arrest: If the arrest is unlawful, the officer is an aggressor. The citizen may resist, and if the officer is killed in the course of that resistance, the killing is reduced from murder to manslaughter, or may be excusable as justifiable homicide if the citizen reasonably believed his life was in danger or that he faced great bodily harm.
The court famously stated:
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable."
This passage effectively equated an unlawful arrest with a violent assault, granting the citizen the full panoply of self-defense rights, including the "stand your ground" principle (no duty to retreat) within one's own home or place of right.
The "Plummer Rule" and Its Significance
The doctrine emerging from this case is often referred to as the "Plummer Rule" or the common law right to resist unlawful arrest. Its significance lies in several key holdings:
- Equality of Status: It reinforced the principle that a badge does not grant extra-legal authority. An officer acting outside the law loses the shield of state authority and becomes a private aggressor.
- Self-Defense Application: It explicitly applied self-defense doctrines—reasonable belief of danger, proportionality of force, and no duty to retreat—to the context of police-citizen encounters.
- Jury Determination: It mandated that the question of whether the arrest was lawful, and whether the force used was reasonable, were questions of fact for the jury, not matters of law for the judge to decide against the defendant.
The Modern Erosion: Statutory Abrogation and Judicial Limitation
While Plummer was the law in Indiana and influential across the United States for decades, the legal landscape has shifted dramatically. The majority of jurisdictions, including Indiana, have abolished or severely limited the common law right to resist arrest.
Indiana’s Statutory Reversal
In 1941, the Indiana General Assembly enacted a statute (now codified at IC 35-41-3-2) that explicitly removed the right to resist an arrest, even an unlawful one, provided the officer is acting "under color of law" and identifies themselves as an officer. The statute generally provides that a person may not use force to resist a lawful or unlawful arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a law enforcement officer No workaround needed..
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld this statutory abrogation in cases such as *Fields v. This leads to § 1983), not street-side combat. In practice, s. The rationale for this shift includes:
- Public Safety: Resistance escalates violence, endangering the officer, the arrestee, and bystanders. Also, * Judicial Remedy: The proper remedy for an unlawful arrest is a habeas corpus petition, a motion to suppress evidence, or a civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U. Which means state* (1979) and Bennett v. State (1984). Now, c. * Professionalism of Policing: Modern policing involves training, oversight, and accountability mechanisms that did not exist in 1893, reducing the need for "self-help" remedies.
Easier said than done, but still worth knowing Took long enough..
The National Trend
The vast majority of states have followed suit, either through legislation or judicial decision. On the flip side, 04(2)(a)(i)** explicitly rejects the right to resist arrest, stating that the use of force is not justifiable "to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer... Consider this: the **Model Penal Code § 3. although the arrest is unlawful.
Even so, a minority of jurisdictions retain some form of the common law right, particularly when the officer uses excessive force. In almost all states, a citizen retains the right to defend themselves against excessive force used by an officer, even during a lawful arrest. This distinction—resisting
