Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...in arresting a felon person who has been convicted of a felony and who is fleeing from justice. Force in making Use of any force by a law enforcement officer or unlawful arrest any person summoned or directed to assist the law prohibited enforcement officer is not justified if: F.S. 776.051(2) Give if 1....

..., but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest resisting by a law enforcement officer who is known, to be or reasonably arrest appears to be a law enforcement officer. F.S. 776.051(1) and F.S....

...g an arrest of a suspected felon pursuant to the recent decision of Tennessee v. Garner, [___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1] (1985). The second substantive change is a new instruction under justifiable use of force in resisting arrest under section 776.051(1)....

...cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting A person is not justified in using force arrest to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears to be F.S. 776.051(1) and a law enforcement officer....

...e death or great bodily harm, but (assailant continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting A person is not justified in using force to arrest resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears to be a law F.S. 776.051(1) and enforcement officer....

...in arresting a person who has been convicted of a felony and who is fleeing from justice. Force in Use of any force by a law enforcement officer making unlawful or any person summoned or directed to assist the arrest law enforcement officer is not justified if: prohibited F.S. 1. The arrest is unlawful. 776.051(2) 2....

...s unrelated to the crime. The State's position is that although knowledge of the victim's status as a law enforcement officer is not an essential element *1117 of the offense, it can be raised as an affirmative defense. The State's argument rests on section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2002), a provision in the chapter concerning the justifiable use of force. Section 776.051(1), entitled "Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition," provides that [a] person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. Although this Court previously determined that section 776.051(1) is to be read in pari, materia with section 843.01, Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1270 n....

...le use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer." Id. Furthermore, we stated that this provision "is limited by its plain terms to situations involving an actual arrest. " Id. at 1270 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, section 776.051(1) cannot provide for an affirmative defense to resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01, a provision which criminalizes violent resistance in both arrest and non-arrest encounters with law enforcement officers....

...d come from a statutory change in the law, was substantive. See Fla. Bar re Standard Jury Instructions Criminal Cases, 477 So.2d 985, 986 (Fla.1985) (discussing that the new jury instruction for the justifiable use of force in resisting arrest under section 776.051(c), Florida Statutes (1985), was of a "substantive nature") (quoting committee report)....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting arrest. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting arrest. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...1974); Smith v. State, 292 So.2d 69 (3d DCA Fla. 1974); Rosenberg v. State, 264 So.2d 68 (4th DCA Fla. 1972); F.S. 843.01 (1973). After the episode which gave rise to these proceedings, the legislature enacted Ch. 74-383 § 13, Laws of Florida, now codified as Section 776.051 and effective July 1, 1975. Section 776.051(1) provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. Pursuant to Ch. 74-383 § 1, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 775.011, Florida Statutes (1975), the provisions of Section 776.051 are not applicable in the present case....

...Nielan, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent. PARIENTE, J. The decision under review, Tillman v. State, 807 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), expressly and directly conflicts with Taylor v. State, 740 So.2d 89 (Fla.1st DCA 1999), on the issue of whether section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest notwithstanding the illegality of the officer's actions, extends to other types of police-citizen encounters....

...te to prove that the officer was lawfully executing a legal duty at the time of the alleged battery or violent resistance. Id. However, the district court cited a line of district court cases that have interpreted section 843.01 in pari materia with section 776.051(1) to hold that the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful regardless of whether the arrest is technically illegal....

...the officer's actions does not preclude a conviction of resisting with violence or battery on a law enforcement officer. Id. at 110. The Fifth District expressly declined in this case to follow Taylor. Id. at 109. In Taylor, the First District held section 776.051(1) inapplicable in a prosecution for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting with violence based on a defendant's violent reaction to an officer who entered the defendant's home in response to a noise complaint and attempted to lead him outside....

...The Fifth District also concluded that the patdown and detention of Tillman were less intrusive than an arrest, "so Tillman was not justified in using force to resist." Tillman, 807 So.2d at 109. We granted review to resolve the conflict between Taylor and Tillman on the scope of section 776.051(1). ANALYSIS I. Statutory Provisions and Standard of Review The issues in this case require us to construe sections 776.051(1), 784.07, and 843.01, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 776.051(1) provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...When the language is unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, that meaning controls unless it leads to a result that is either unreasonable or clearly contrary to legislative intent. State v. Burris, 875 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla.2004). II. Construction of Section 776.051(1) Section 776.051(1) forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer, regardless of the legality of the arrest. The plain meaning of the language used in this provision limits its application to arrest scenarios. This construction comports with another rule of construction governing laws that alter the common law. Enacted in 1974, section 776.051(1) abrogates the common-law right to resist an illegal arrest with force....

...Corp., 675 So.2d 577, 581 (Fla.1996); Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 354 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla.1977); Guerrier v. State, 811 So.2d 852, 854 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Thus, to effectuate its plain meaning and displace the common law no more than necessary, section 776.051(1) is implicated only when a defendant acts violently against an officer in resisting an arrest....

...ition into sections 784.07(2) and 843.01 when an actual arrest is not involved. [4] As the Fifth District recognized in reasoning that a patdown and detention are less intrusive than an arrest, policy reasons may support extending the prohibition in section 776.051(1) beyond police-citizen encounters involving *1270 an arrest....

...terpretation of the statute "would produce an `unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion.'" Perkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Fla.1996) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984)). In addition, contrary to the Fifth District's determination, section 776.051(1) requires an actual arrest and not merely probable cause for an arrest....

...See Tillman, 807 So.2d at 110 (concluding that "once Tillman placed [the officer] in a headlock," the officer had probable cause to arrest him, rendering Tillman's subsequent actions sufficient to convict for battery on a law enforcement officer). Section 776.051(1) does not address the use of force to resist an officer when there are grounds for an arrest but no actual arrest is taking place....

...Beasley, 580 So.2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991) (recognizing that publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions). Accordingly, we agree with the First District in Taylor and hold that section 776.051(1) is limited by its plain terms to situations involving an actual arrest. [5] III. Defining Lawful Execution of a Legal Duty Because the prohibition in section 776.051(1) applies only to the use of force to resist arrest, the provision has no application to prosecutions for crimes against law enforcement officers under other circumstances....

...eat a prosecution for battery on an officer and resisting with violence, did not apply the standards we adopt today when it assessed the sufficiency of the evidence to support Tillman's convictions. See Tillman, 807 So.2d at 108-09. Our holding that section 776.051(1) applies only in an arrest scenario requires that the State establish the element of lawful execution of a legal duty under the facts of this case....

...In this case, those limits are found in Fourth Amendment precedent such as Payton and Terry as well as section 901.151(2), Florida Statutes. For the reasons explained herein, we approve the holding in Taylor that the prohibition on the use of force to resist an arrest in section 776.051(1) does not extend beyond arrest scenarios....

...He also claimed that he was cooperating with the officers until Henriquez pushed him, causing Tillman to stumble, lose his balance, and fall to the ground on top of Henriquez. Id. at 108, 807 So.2d 106. [4] In arrest situations, Florida courts have consistently read section 776.051(1) in pari materia with the offenses described in sections 784.07(2) and 843.01 and, in so doing, have not required the State to prove that the arrest was lawful. See, e.g., Espinosa, 686 So.2d at 1347 and n. 4 (declining to revisit "well-settled" law in applying section 776.051 to crime of resisting an officer with violence); see also Delaney v. State, 489 So.2d 891, 892-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); State v. Johnson, 382 So.2d 866, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Because the issue is not before us, we decline to address the effect of section 776.051 on the "lawful execution" element in arrest situations. [5] The First District stated in dicta that "[t]he comparison between a detention and an arrest may be similar enough in this context," suggesting that it would extend the prohibition in section 776.051(1) to the use of force to resist illegal detentions....

...The court's observations in Allen were based upon its prior opinion in Ivester v. State, 398 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1982), wherein the correlation between self-defense and the use of force by an arresting officer was analyzed: Sections 776.012 and 776.051, Florida Statutes (1974), were both enacted as a part of the same act....

...The effect of reading these statutes in pari materia is to permit an individual to defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested. This view is consistent with the position taken by other jurisdictions that have been confronted with questions relating to statutes similar to Sections 776.012, 776.051 and 843.01, Florida Statutes....

...It appears that this was a clerical error, and as the sentence exceeds the maximum allowable by law under section 316.1935, Florida Statutes (1983), we reverse the sentence and remand for its reduction to one year. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...ciplined or sued for use of excessive force while on duty, and the officer's home address, neighborhood and marital status. The motion to compel discovery was denied on the ground that a self-defense argument was "irrelevant and immaterial," because Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1974), does not permit the use of force in resisting arrest....

...2d DCA 1975) certified question dismissed 326 So.2d 441 (Fla. 1976) reh. denied. Burgess stands for the proposition that no individual has the right to use force in resisting arrest, unless he apprehends bodily harm. While we agree that this rule of law is correct, Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, was not in effect at the time Burgess was written. Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, states that "(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer." In Lowery v. State, *930 356 So.2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), the court read Section 843.01, Florida Statutes, in pari materia with Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1974)....

...and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself ... against such other's imminent use of unlawful force... ." See also Pani v. State, 361 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978) reh. denied. Sections 776.012 and 776.051, Florida Statutes (1974), were both enacted as a part of the same act....

...The effect of reading these statutes in pari materia is to permit an individual to defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested. This view is consistent with the position taken by other jurisdictions that have been confronted with questions relating to statutes similar to Sections 776.012, 776.051 and 843.01, Florida Statutes....

...out violence. See, e.g., State v. Saunders, 339 So.2d 641 (Fla.1976); Benjamin; Johnson v. State, 395 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Lee v. State, 368 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, So.2d 349 (Fla.1979). Further, courts have consistently read section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1995), [3] in pari materia with section 843.01 to eliminate that element as to the offense of resisting arrest with violence....

...e execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [3] Section 776.051 provides: (1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...State, 354 So.2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Until recently, Florida law even permitted the use of force to resist an unlawful arrest. E.g. State v. Saunders, 339 So.2d 641, 642, n. 2 (Fla. 1976). However, in 1974 the legislature modified the common-law rule by enacting Section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1975) (effective July 1, 1975)....

...This statute provides that a person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. Thus, after July 1, 1975, Section 843.01 must be read in pari materia with Section 776.051; the end result being that the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest....

...r us to consider the question of a defendant's right to use force in defense of his person under Section 776.012. The incident giving rise to the charge of resisting arrest with violence occurred on October 17, 1976, well after the effective date of Section 776.051....

...Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. SCHWARTZ, Judge (specially concurring). The record in this case contains a great deal of evidence that the defendant resisted arrest with violence, as he was charged. As to this crime, the illegality of the arrest is no defense. Section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1977); K.G....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting arrest . § 776.051(1), Fla....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting arrest . § 776.051(1), Fla....

...ified as being incident to a lawful arrest. Reversed. BOARDMAN, Acting C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur. NOTES [1] The events here took place prior to the effective date of the new criminal code. Therefore, we need not determine the effect of Fla. Stat. § 776.051 on the right to resist an officer in the performance of his duties.

...indication that he was a danger to himself or others. *91 The state argues that the illegality of the entry into the defendant's home does not justify the defendant's use of force against the deputy. In support of this argument, the state relies on section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, which states that "[a] person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer." See Lowery v....

...ement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest"); Reed v. State, 606 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (stating that "a battery upon a law enforcement officer, even one attempting an invalid arrest, is illegal"). Section 776.051(1) does not apply in this case, however, because the statute is limited by its terms to a situation in which the defendant has used force to "resist an arrest." Here, the defendant was not charged with resisting arrest....

...To the contrary, he was merely trying to coax the defendant outside so that he could speak with him. The alleged resistance or opposition to Deputy Gootee was based on the fact that the defendant shoved the officer to prevent him from escorting the defendant outside. The effect of section 776.051(1) in a resisting arrest case is to eliminate the need for proof that the officer was engaged in the performance of a lawful duty in making the arrest....

...If the defendant is charged under section 843.01 with the crime of resisting or opposing an officer in the performance of some other duty, the state must prove that the duty was lawful. Because the defendant in this case was not accused of resisting arrest, the limitation in section 776.051(1) on the right to use force against an officer is inapplicable. We recognize that some courts have extended the application of section 776.051(1) to unlawful detentions, even though it refers to arrests....

...icer); Jones v. State, 570 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (holding that an unlawful detention does not justify a battery on the officer). The comparison between a detention and an arrest may be similar enough in this context, but we do not think that section 776.051(1) can be extended to a situation in which an officer has entered someone's house without any arguable legal justification....

...Thus, the officer's pursuit, arrest and search of appellant was proper because it was supported by sufficient evidence of either a prior battery or resisting arrest with violence. Appellant cites to Brannen v. State, 453 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), for support for his argument that, in spite of section 776.051(1), he cannot be charged with resisting arrest with violence where the officer was improperly searching him and was not engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty at the time of the resistance....

...st with violence even where the underlying arrest is unlawful. As is evident from K.Y.E., *915 supra, Ivester v. State, 398 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), Lowery v. State, 356 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and many other cases, sections 843.01 and 776.051(1) penalize a defendant's resistance of an unlawful arrest with violence....

...Rodriguez's trial, however, this district's case law essentially made the issue of whether the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty irrelevant if the accused had used violence when battering or opposing the officer. The Second District had broadly applied section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, which precludes the defense of justifiable use of force when resisting an arrest regardless of the legality of the arrest, to encounters between citizens and the police that did not involve arrests....

...ections 784.07(2) and 843.01), quashed, 944 So.2d 340 (Fla.2006), opinion on remand, 947 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). But after Mrs. Rodriguez's conviction and the commencement of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the proposition that section 776.051(1) extended beyond an arrest situation to other types of police-citizen encounters....

...of the peace" was the deputy who had been sent to the scene to keep the peace. Appellant's conviction for disorderly conduct is reversed but her conviction under § 843.01, Florida Statutes (1975), for resisting arrest with violence is affirmed. See § 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1975), and footnote 2 of State v....

...elf-defense instruction be given with regard to the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer. The State argued, and the trial court agreed, that a jury instruction of self-defense on this charge would have been improper because Florida Statute § 776.051 prohibits the use of force in resisting an arrest by a known law enforcement officer....

...But, the use of force or violence against a person reasonably known to be a police officer is unlawful even where the arrest is not lawful. As stated by this court in State v. Barnard, 405 So.2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981): Thus, after July 1, 1975, section 843.01 must be read in pari materia with section 776.051 [2]; the end result being that the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest. [2] § 776.051(1), Fla....

...Under ordinary circumstances, the search in this case would be invalidated. The law further states that a person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest where it is reasonably believed that the person making the arrest is a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...ense and concluded with that portion of Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.04(d), which, as it existed at the time of trial, stated: "A person is never justified in the use of any force to resist an arrest." In Ivester, the district court construed section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...vidual to defend himself against unlawful or excessive force, even when being arrested. This view is consistent with the position taken by other jurisdictions that have been confronted with questions relating to statutes similar to sections 776.012, 776.051 and 848.01, Florida Statutes....

...police officer, the prudent thing for that person to do is to disarm the officer if possible. Therefore I would approve the district court decision in part and quash in part and remand for a new trial on all the charges. SHAW, J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 776.051(1) and section 776.012 have remained unchanged to date....

...resence, the arrest of Ms. Marshall was unlawful. Section 901.15, Florida Statutes (1975). At common law, one could resist an unlawful arrest with impunity. Burgess v. State, 313 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). However, in 1974 our legislature enacted Section 776.051 which prohibits the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer regardless of the legality of the arrest. In view of the fact that Section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1975) proscribes only the use of force in resisting arrest, we must assume that the common law rule, long recognized in Florida, remains in effect with respect to the right to resist an unlawful arrest without resorting to the use of force....

...in a defendant's home justify the use of force to resist such arrest? The correct rule on the subject has been stated in Lowery v. State, 356 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978): Thus, after July 1, 1975, section 843.01 must be read in pari materia with section 776.051; [2] the end result being that the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest....

...sistent herewith. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. NOTES [1] Appellee asserts, in effect, that since the arrest without a warrant was illegal, the officers were therefore not in the lawful performance of their duties. [2] § 776.051(1), Fla....

...Because we reverse the conviction for breach of the peace, we must also reverse the conviction for obstructing or opposing an officer without violence. While the illegality of the underlying arrest is no defense to resisting the arrest with force or violence, Blake v. State, 433 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1989), the common law rule still remains that a person may lawfully resist an illegal arrest without using any force or violence....

...However, we do not agree that all of the charges must fail along with the charge of disorderly intoxication. In Harbin v. State, 358 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this court reversed a disorderly conduct conviction, but upheld the conviction for resisting arrest with violence, citing Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, and State v....

...5th DCA 2001) (essential element of battery on a law enforcement officer is that officer was engaged the in the performance of a lawful duty); Smith v. State, 399 So.2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (essential element of resisting arrest with violence is that officer be engaged in lawful performance of a legal duty). However, section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. We have relied on this statute to hold that: after July 1, 1975, section 843.01 must be read in pari materia with section 776.051; the end result being that the *109 use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest....

...In Taylor, a police officer unlawfully entered the defendant's home to investigate a noise complaint and the defendant shoved him. The defendant was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence. Our sister court reversed both convictions, stating that section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, only applies to cases in which the defendant is charged with resisting arrest, as opposed to resisting some lesser duty, such as a contact, stop or detention. The court acknowledged our prior holdings to the contrary but distinguished its case, stating: ... we do not think that section 776.051(1) can be extended to a situation in which an officer has entered someone's house without any arguable legal justification....

...Instruction 3.3(g) is intended to ensure that a jury makes the findings required by Harbaugh. We amend instruction 3.6(f), Justifiable Use of Deadly Force, and instruction 3.6(g), Justifiable Use of Non-deadly Force, to conform with statutory changes brought about by the Legislature's amendment to section 776.051, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...In Tillman, the Court held that the offense of using force to resist an arrest was limited to situations where the law enforcement officer was effecting an arrest, and not to other types of police-citizen encounters. Id. at 1266. The plain language of section 776.051 dictated such limited results, particularly since sections 784.07 and 843.01, Florida Statutes (2005), which defined the offenses of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence, respectively, included t...

...r was "engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties" or "in the lawful execution of any legal duty." Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1266 (quoting §§ 784.07(2), 843.01). Without such alternative language that appears in sections 784.07 and 843.01, section 776.051 could not be extended to those situations where a law enforcement officer was not in the process of making an actual arrest. In chapter 2008-67, section 1, the Legislature *641 expanded section 776.051(1) to include as the nonjustifiable use of force resisting a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty where the officer was acting in good faith. The amendments to instructions 3.6(f) and 3.6(g) include that new language reflecting amended section 776.051(1)....

...Instruction 3.6(h), Justifiable Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officer, is amended to reflect that force by a law enforcement officer or person assisting him or her is prohibited both in the case of making an unlawful arrest and in the unlawful execution of a legal duty. See § 776.051(2), Fla....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer arrest . § 776.051(1), Fla....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer arrest . § 776.051(1), Fla....

...making the arrest. That force is also justifiable when necessarily used: 1. in retaking a felon who has escaped or 2. in arresting a felon who is fleeing from justice. Force in making unlawful arrest or unlawful execution of a legal duty prohibited. § 776.051(2), Fla....

...nce. But here, the fact of the illegal stop is no defense to the charge of battery of a known police officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties. The technical illegality of the stop does not give appellant license to batter the officer. Section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that a person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...In the course of the arrest Morley resisted. He was charged with resisting arrest with violence and was found guilty of resisting arrest without violence. In Florida, the common law right to resist an illegal arrest with force has been abrogated by statute Section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ts should analyze the question of whether an officer is "engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty" for purposes of section 843.01. Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006). In doing so, the supreme court rejected the State's argument that "section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest notwithstanding the illegality of the officer's actions, extends to other types of police citizen encounters." Id....

...We can only say that police officers must unfortunately expect the use of such expletives *622 depending upon the source and circumstances. Finally, we note such problems may be eliminated, or at least ameliorated, beginning July 1, 1975. At that time a new statute, F.S. 776.051, will become effective....

...In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and indicated clearly to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting arrest. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...result in an affirmance of the adjudication of delinquency on the two counts of assault and battery, and on the count of resisting arrest. Had the arrest not been valid, the juvenile would still not have been justified in violently resisting arrest. Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...Because the conflict between the district courts is limited to a pure question of statutory interpretation, this Court reviews the issue under the de novo standard of review. See Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1269 (Fla.2006) (citing Clines v. State, 912 So.2d 550, 555 (Fla.2005)), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 776.051(1), Fla....

...A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...The use of force in resisting arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law *172 enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest. Wallace v. State, 557 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Morley v. State, 362 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 776.051(1), Fla....

...Florida has a special statutory provision which states: 776.51 Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition.— (1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). This statute has been construed to prohibit the use of violence in resisting an arrest, even if the arrest is illegal. "[C]ourts have consistently read section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1995), in pari materia with section 843.01 to eliminate [the requirement] that [the arrest be legal] as to the offense of resisting arrest with violence." State v....

...rrest. Count 3, charging battery on a law enforcement officer, covers the defendant's striking of the officer with his knee while being placed in the patrol car. Since both acts occurred after the *407 officer told the defendant he was under arrest, section 776.051 applies and prohibits the defendant from using violence to resist the arrest, even if the arrest was illegal....

...Tillman v. State, 807 So.2d 106, 108-09 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quoting State v. Barnard, 405 So.2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)); see also State v. Giddens, 633 So.2d 503, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The Tillman court predicated this conclusion on Fla. Stat. § 776.051(1), which makes clear that "[a] person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer." According to Mr....

.... with black sunglasses on . . . ." Perez depo. at 12:22-25. The videotape also shows all officers as being dressed in full uniform. Accordingly, at the very least, Officer Bushing "reasonably appear[ed] to be a law enforcement officer," Fla. Stat. § 776.051(1), and Fidel was not justified in physically resisting as he did....

...The defendant knew (victim) was a law enforcement officer or (victim) reasonably appeared under the circumstances to be a law enforcement officer. Id. at page 43. This standard jury instruction is not a totally correct statement of Florida law. It is based on section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1981). [1] In Invester *102 v. State, 398 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1982), we held that section 776.051 must be read in pari materia with section 776.012, Florida Statutes, which justifies the use of force in certain circumstances....

...hit defendant's hand with the flashlight. The record is devoid of any evidence from which a jury could conclude that unlawful or excessive force was being used by the officer. AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1981) states: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...aw in this district was such that the lawfulness of the officers' actions was immaterial except with respect to the charge of opposing an officer without violence. See Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1263 (rejecting the view held by this court and others that section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest notwithstanding the illegality of the officer's actions, extends to other police-citizen encounters).

...Fear of the police as a defense would eviscerate the crime and certainly does nothing to establish a defense of necessity or duress, particularly when Anderson’s trial testimony leaves no doubt that he knew he was fleeing law enforcement officers. See § 776.051(1), Fla....

...cquittal, because an officer's improper performance of his legal duty at the time of a defendant's forcible resistance to the officer is not a defense to a charge of resisting arrest with violence. Resisting an officer with violence is proscribed by section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which states: A person in not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...4th DCA 1978), we held that the use of force to resist an arrest is unlawful, notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest. We reached that ruling after determining that section 843.01 (resisting and obstructing with violence) must be read together with section 776.051....

...We conclude that this was error because the defendant was not privileged to use force against the law enforcement officer even if the officer was attempting to effect an illegal arrest. State v. Gilchrist, 458 So.2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); § 776.051(1), Fla....

...t a person is not entitled to use physical force to contest an illegal arrest. Meeks v. State, 369 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Jones v. State, 570 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Wallace; Dominique v. State, 590 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See § 776.051(1), Fla....

...ld also be reversed because the officer was not engaged in a lawful duty when the battery and obstruction occurred. We reject this argument because the violence perpetrated by Miller was in response to the officer's attempt to arrest her. Therefore, section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which states that a person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest, applies here....

...esponded, over defense objection, with an incomplete, incorrect and misleading instruction. The court’s instruction on use of force correctly stated the law concerning the use of force when a defendant is charged with resisting arrest, pursuant to section 776.051, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...The record contains an unresolved question concerning the authority of HRS and the deputies to remove the children from the home under the circumstances of this evening. The trial court *1329 determined that the deputies' actions in this case did not permit a defense to resisting an officer with violence. § 776.051, Fla....

...The appellate court noted, "[I]t is error to give the instruction in a case-specific manner, as it was given here, because the instruction in effect takes from the jury the issue of the validity of the arrest." Id. The State argues that any error was harmless because section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful to resist an arrest with force even if the arrest is illegal....

...s or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [3] Section 776.051, Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition, states in relevant part "(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law...

...tion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present prima facia evidence that the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties — a necessary element of both offenses. We affirmed the convictions, finding that pursuant to section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), [3] an individual could not forcibly resist an officer even if the officer's actions may have been technically illegal. Tillman v. State, 807 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The Florida Supreme Court reversed, concluding that section 776.051(1) only applied to those situations in which an individual was resisting an arrest by a law enforcement officer. Section 776.051(1) forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer, regardless of the legality of the arrest. The plain meaning of the language used in this provision limits its application to arrest scenarios. *1052 Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1269. The supreme court recognized that while there may be policy reasons to extend the prohibition in section 776.051(1) beyond police/citizen encounters involving an arrest, the Legislature had failed to do so. Id. at 1269-70. After concluding that section 776.051(1) did not apply to non-arrest cases, the supreme court then examined the definition of "lawful performance of a legal duty." The court rejected a test based on whether an officer was acting as a "reasonable officer." Instead, the sup...

...A police officer can be engaged in the lawful performance of his duties when working an off-duty job. See State v. Hartzog, 575 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Hughes v. State, 400 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Robinson, 379 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). [3] Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...However, the availability of such a defense, which was implicitly rejected by the jury in this case, does not render knowledge an element of the offense itself which must be established by the state. Cf. State v. Espinosa, 686 So.2d 1345, 1347 (Fla.1996)("courts have consistently read section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1995), in pari materia with section 843.01 to eliminate [the legal arrest] element as to the offense of resisting arrest with violence")....

...t violence. [4] *685 The justification in Benjamin for judicially imposing this additional element only on section 843.02 (and not on section 843.01) appears to be that at common law a citizen had the right to resist an illegal arrest and that since section 776.051 only abrogates the common law rule with respect to violent resistance, the right to resist an unlawful arrest without violence remains....

...require the finding that resisting without violence is a necessarily lesser included offense under resisting with violence. Even in Benjamin, we acknowledge "at first blush" this appears to be the case. [5] It is apparent, because of the location of section 776.051 within the chapter on Justifiable Use of Force, and the context in which it appears, that section 776.051 is merely a limitation on the use of self defense....

the view held by this court and others that section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2003), which prohibits

...is guilty of a third degree felony, see section 843.01, Florida Statutes (2003), and that a person is not justified to use force to resist arrest by an officer where the officer "is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer." See § 776.051(1), Fla....

...on who flashed the badge and handcuffs and shouted "police, you're under arrest" was in fact an officer. Rather, the State could present circumstantial evidence that the defendant "should reasonably have known" that Officer Munoz was an officer. See § 776.051, Fla....

...result in an affirmance of the adjudication of delinquency on the two counts of assault and battery, and on the count of resisting arrest. Had the arrest not been valid, the juvenile would still not have been justified in violently resisting arrest. Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...(assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...(assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of non-deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...Because we reverse the conviction for breach of the peace, we must also reverse the conviction for obstructing or opposing an officer without violence. While the illegality of the underlying arrest is no defense to resisting the arrest with force or violence, Blake v. State, 433 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1989), the common law rule still remains that a person may lawfully resist an illegal arrest without using any force or violence....

...We recognize that “[t]he zone of protection under the Fourth Amendment extends to the curtilage of a home, which includes a fenced or enclosed area encompassing the dwelling.” Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1272 (Fla.2006), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 776.051(1), Fla....

...(1975), and this waiver became effective against municipalities and subdivisions of the State in 1975. See ch. 74-235, § 3, Laws of Fla. At that same time, the legislature receded from the common law rule that one could resist arrest with force by passing section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...To convict a defendant for battery of a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence, the State must prove that the officer was engaged in the lawful performance or the execution of a legal duty. 3 Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1266 (Fla.2006), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 776.051(1), Fla....

...ol vehicles.” However, the order dismisses all four counts, including the three charges based on Appellee’s violence after being arrested. This is clear error. A person is not entitled to use physical force to contest even an illegal arrest. See § 776.051(1), Fla....

...[1] Petitioner appealed contending that his convictions could not stand because the officers acted unlawfully in detaining him. On appeal, the State argued that the illegality of the stop was not a defense to appellant's use of force in resisting or battering the officers. See § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that a person is not justified in using force in resisting an arrest by a police officer). We affirmed without a written opinion. At the time of the appeal, the question of whether section 776.051(1) applied to non-arrest situations was pending on review in the Florida Supreme Court in Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006). After this court per curiam affirmed petitioner's convictions, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Tillman that section 776.051(1) did not apply to non-arrest situations, *1169 such as the unlawful detention arising from the illegal traffic stop in this case....

...ew in Florida Supreme Court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction). On direct appeal, the State relied on Dominique v. State, 590 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), decisions applying section 776.051(1) and holding that the illegality of a detention was not a defense to charges of battery on a law enforcement officer. The supreme court's decision in Tillman overruled Dominique and Harris. See also Perry v. State, 953 So.2d 459 (Fla.2007) (quashing a decision of this court which had relied on these cases and section 776.051(1))....

...He was then tackled by another officer who testified that petitioner kicked him when he fell to the ground. [2] As explained in Tillman, even if the officers had probable cause to arrest petitioner for misdemeanor battery after he pushed the first officer, section 776.051(1) applies only where the officer is engaging in an actual arrest, not where the officer has mere probable cause to arrest....

...5th DCA 2002), quashed, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006), which was pending review in our Court, and cited as contrary authority Taylor v. State, 740 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981). The issue is whether section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest, applies apart from arrest scenarios. After receiving the merits briefs in this case, we stayed the proceedings pending our decision in Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006). There we approved the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor that section 776.051(1) "does not extend beyond arrest scenarios," and quashed the Fifth District's decision in Tillman to the contrary....

...After our decision in Tillman became final, we directed the State to show cause why we should not quash the Fourth District's decision in this case and remand for reconsideration in light of Tillman. In its response, the State asserted that Tillman does not control because an arrest within the meaning of section 776.051(1) extends to the post-arrest strip search resisted by Perry. The State urges us to discharge jurisdiction, while Perry urges us to quash and remand for reconsideration under Tillman. We must quash the Fourth District's decision because it is contrary to our construction of section 776.051(1) in Tillman....

...the proposition that the use of force against a known police officer extends to illegal stops, searches, and detentions. See Perry, 846 So.2d at 587. We expressly rejected this view in Tillman, and cannot permit the same erroneous interpretation of section 776.051(1) to stand here. However, we decline to decide whether an arrest under section 776.051(1) encompasses post-arrest intake procedures such as the strip search in this case....

...there were exigent circumstances justifying the entry without a warrant. Where violence occurs during an arrest, and the defendant is charged with resisting an officer with violence, the State is not required to prove that the arrest was lawful. See § 776.051(1), Fla....

...(2007) ("A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement *303 officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer."); see also Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1270 n. 4 (Fla.2006) ("In arrest situations, Florida courts have consistently read section 776.051(1) in pari materia with the offenses described in sections 784.07(2) and 843.01 and, in so doing, have not required the State to prove that the arrest was lawful."), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 776.051(1), Fla....

...4th DCA 2009). Here, Motes was charged with resisting an officer by kicking and striking him during the arrest. The officer's clothing displayed a Broward Sheriff's Office logo and the officer had previously announced that he was a police officer. Pursuant to section 776.051(1), the appellant was not justified in resisting the arresting officer with violence regardless of the legality of the arrest....

...The trial court disagreed with defense counsel's interpretation of Tillman explaining that the case applies only to non-arrest situations, that the present case is an arrest case, and the state maintains that interpretation on appeal. In Tillman, the Florida Supreme Court explained that section 776.051, which forecloses the defense of justifiable force by a defendant charged with resisting arrest, is limited in scope to arrest scenarios....

...in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer ... is guilty of a felony of the third degree.... But the Tillman Court also reiterated that Florida courts consistently hold that in arrest scenarios, section 776.051 applies to relieve the state of the burden of proving that the arrest was lawful....

...Section 843.01, Florida Statutes (2006), makes it a crime for a person to “knowingly and willfully resist[ ], obstruct! ], or oppose! ] any officer ... in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer.” On June 30, 3006, the date of the alleged offense, section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2006), 1 provided that “[a] person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer.” (emphasis added)....

...As the State’s evidence failed to establish that the alleged resistance took place during either a lawful detention or an arrest, we reverse Johnson’s conviction. Reversed and Remanded. WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur. . Effective July 1, 2008, the legislature amended section 776.051....

...We reconsider on remand our opinion in Perry v. State, 846 So.2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006). In Tillman , the supreme court held that section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the use of force to resist an arrest, regardless of the illegality of a law enforcement officer’s actions, applies only to arrest situations....

...y executing a legal duty. 1 The issue which the supreme court directed us to address in light of Tillman is whether a strip search performed by an intake booking deputy at the county jail is a part of the arrest process, such that the prohibition in section 776.051(1) against the use of force to resist an arrest applies in this case....

...The trial court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant filed an appeal of his conviction and "sentence for resisting an officer with violence. We affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence for resisting an officer with violence. In so ruling, we relied upon section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the use of force to resist an unlawful arrest, and disagreed with “appellant’s argument that the rule prohibiting the use of force against a known police officer is limited to an arrest situation.” Perry v....

...The supreme court held that if did not and quashed our decision, based upon its decision in Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263 (Fla.2006). The court remanded Perry -for reconsideration, stating: We must quash the Fourth District’s decision because it is contrary to our construction of section 776.051(1) in Tillman....

...the proposition that the use of force against a known police officer extends to illegal stops, searches, and detentions. See Perry, 846 So.2d at 587 . We expressly rejected this view in Tillman, and cannot permit the same erroneous interpretation of section 776.051(1). to stand here. However, we decline to decide whether an arrest under section 776.051(1) encompasses post-arrest intake procedures such as the strip search in this case....

...him. We did not decide this issue before. At trial, appellant’s defense to the charge of resisting an officer with violence was that he was justified in forcibly opposing the deputies’ unlawful attempts to strip search him. The state, relying on section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, asserted that this was not a viable defense. Section 776.051(1) provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. Tillman rejected the state’s position, holding that section 776.051(1), by its plain language, only forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force to a defendant who resists an illegal arrest by a law enforcement officer....

...1455, 1459 (M.D.Ga.1997). Tillman did not resolve this issue because the facts in that case involved an illegal detention, or events that preceded an arrest, rather than events that occurred during or after an arrest. Tillman explained that “[sjection 776.051(1) does not address the use of force to resist an officer when there are grounds for an arrest but no actual arrest is taking place.” 934 So.2d at 1270 (emphasis added)....

...to post-arrest intake procedures, such as booking. These events usually occur after the suspect has been securely placed in custody and turned over to the jailors. Although it is tempting to include post-arrest intake procedures within the ambit of section 776.051(1) to promote the public interest in protecting law enforcement officers from violence when performing their duties in detention facilities, we are constrained by the plain and unambiguous language of the statute....

...e force to resist an illegal arrest, we must strictly construe the statute in favor of the accused. See Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1269 ; McLaughlin v. State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998); Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1991). In enacting section 776.051(1), the legislature could have extended protection to law enforcement officers in other types of police-citizen encounters but decided to do so only in arrest situations....

...1st DCA 1979) (holding that defendant could not be guilty of resisting arrest with violence where violence erupted well after he had peaceably been placed in the back seat of a patrol car). *76 We hold that .the prohibition against the use of force to resist an arrest under section 776.051(1) does not apply to post-arrest intake procedures such as the strip search in this case....

...o the type of duty or legal-process-that- was being performed, e.g., making an arrest, sewing a subpoena, sewing a■ domestic violence order . See Hierro v. State, 608 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Note to Judge: A special instruction incorporating § 776.051(1) Fla....

Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. A person is not justified

...ion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present prima facia evidence that the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties — a necessary element of both offenses. We affirmed the convictions, finding that pursuant to section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), 3 an individual could not forcibly resist an officer even if the officer’s actions may have been technically illegal. Tillman v. State, 807 So.2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The Florida Supreme Court reversed, concluding that section 776.051(1) only applied to those situations in which an individual was resisting an arrest by a law enforcement officer. Section 776.051(1) forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer, regardless of the legality of the arrest. The plain meaning of the language used in this provision limits its application to arrest scenarios. *1052 Tillman, 934 So.2d at 1269 . The supreme court recognized that while there may be policy reasons to extend the prohibition in section 776.051(1) beyond police/citizen encounters involving an arrest, the Legislature had failed to do so. Id. at 1269-70 . After concluding that section 776.051(1) did not apply to non-arrest cases, the supreme court then examined the definition of “lawful performance of a legal duty.” The court rejected a test based on whether an officer was acting as a “reasonable officer.” Instead,...

...A police officer can be engaged in the lawful performance of his duties when working an off-duty job. See State v. Hartzog, 575 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Hughes v. State, 400 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Robinson, 379 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). . Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer....

...1974); Smith v. State, 292 So.2d 69 (3d DCA Fla. 1974); Rosenberg v. State, 264 So.2d 68 (4th DCA Fla. 1972); F.S. 843.01 (1973). After the episode which gave rise to these proceedings, the legislature enacted Ch. 74-383 § 13, Laws of Florida, now codified as Section 776.051 and effective July 1, 1975. Section 776.051(1) provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. Pursuant to Ch. 74-383 § 1, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 775.011, Florida Statutes (1975), the provisions of Section 776.051 are not applicable in the present case....

...“776.05[1]: “A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a law enforcement officer.” Appellant requested, but did not receive, an instruction whereby the court would read to the jury verbatim Section 776.051(2), Florida Statutes (1975), which is: “(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is unlawful and known by him to be unlawful.”...

...We need not decide this issue because the point presented does not raise the issue. In addition, the record does not show the presentation to the trial judge of a requested instruction in accord with defendant’s asserted theory. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.390. We hold that the request for an instruction to read Section 776.051(2) was not a proper request and the failure to read that section to the jury was not reversible error in this case....

...Curiously, the resisting without violence instruction does not contain a similar note. Unfortunately, this revision raises more questions than it provides answers. We think the prior version of the instruction, when properly used, was perfectly fine in most circumstances. "Lawfulness" is an element of proof, except when section 776.051(1) applies....

...State, 14 So.3d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] These instructions were amended after Appellant's trial. [2] We say under some circumstances because of the effect of section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2008)....

PER CURIAM. We affirm on all issues raised. As to the specific issues concerning the factual basis for appellant’s plea and the constitutionality of section 776.051, Florida Statutes, appellant failed to preserve these issues for review on direct appeal....

...or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. § 776.051, Fla....

...Fear of the police as a defense would eviscerate the crime and certainly does nothing to establish a defense of necessity or duress, particularly when Anderson's trial testimony leaves no doubt that he knew he was fleeing law enforcement officers. See § 776.051(1), Fla....

...self] or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. That force is also justifiable when necessarily used 1. in retaking a felon who has escaped or 2. in arresting a felon who is fleeing from justice. Force in making unlawful arrest prohibited § 776.051(2), Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. *1010 Affirmed. See § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing that a person "is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer"); Polite v. State , 973 So.2d 1107 , 1117 (Fla. 2007) (observing that section 776.051(1) abrogates the common law right in Florida to resist an illegal arrest with force, and "forecloses the defense of justifiable use of force by a defendant who resists an arrest by a law enforcement officer") (quoting Tillman v....

of another). . Note the public policy in section 776.051(1) which provides, without reference to whether

...instructions for publication and use with certain changes or exceptions as indicated below. The Committee proposes an amendment to the “Note to Judge” within Instruction 21.1, Resisting Officer with Violence, which currently provides: “A special instruction incorporating § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. should be given when the defense claims the officer was acting unlawfully.”2 The Committee proposes that the Note to Judge be amended to restrict the note’s application to cases of resisting 2. Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes (2013), provides: A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a lega...

...enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. -2- arrest. The Committee’s proposal would amend the note to read: “A special instruction incorporating § 776.051(1), Fla....

...claims the officer was acting unlawfully.” (The underlining indicates the proposed new language.) The Committee’s rationale is that “there are circumstances other than an arrest (such as resisting during a detention) where Instruction 21.1 applies, but Florida Statute 776.051(1) does not.” However, section 776.051(1) applies to resisting an officer as well as to resisting arrest. Therefore, we revise the Committee’s proposed amendment and amend the Note to Judge to read as follows: “A special instruction incorporating § 776.051(1), Fla....

...for the type of officer covered by this statute. The court now instructs you that every (name of official position of victim designated in charge) is an officer within the meaning of this law. Note to Judge: A special instruction incorporating § 776.051(1) Fla....

...Therefore, the facts of the stop in this case are indistinguishable from those in Palmer and Diaz , and accordingly, we must reverse. WHATLEY and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur. . While an improper stop would not negate a charge of opposing an officer with violence, § 776.051(1), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Bush v. State, 369 So.2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see also, K. G. v. State, 338 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Section 776.051, Fla.Stat....

...t as a matter of law to support the charge of resisting arrest since the initial arrest was unlawful. We agree and reverse. Initially, we should hasten to note that the events of this saga all occurred prior to October 1, 1975, the effective date of Section 776.051, Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...o burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The instruction may need to be modified in the event that the forcible felony at issue is not a crime against a person. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...her temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...o burden of proof. See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The instruction may need to be modified in the event that the forcible felony at issue is not a crime against a person. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...her temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. Force in resisting a law enforcement officer. § 776.051(1), Fla....

...��where the facts relevant to the recordings are undisputed—is a question of statutory interpretation.” McDade, 154 So. 3d 296–97 (emphasis added). 6 resisting arrest with violence. We reject this assertion. Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, “prohibits the use of force to resist either arrest or the execution of a legal duty by a law enforcement officer unless the defendant can show that the officer was not acting in good faith.” King v. State, 120 So. 3d 108, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (per curiam) (citing A.W. v. State, 82 So. 3d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); see also Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263, 1269 (Fla. 2006), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (explaining that under section 776.051(1) citizens do not have the “right to resist an illegal arrest with force”)....

...tall facing each other, without speaking, for a period of time.”). Affirmed. * The crime date in the present case was September 15, 2006. Under Florida law existing at that time, there was a prohibition on the use of force to resist an arrest, see § 776.051(1), Fla....

...State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1269 (Fla.2006). As written, the statute did not prohibit the use of force in non-arrest circumstances, such as an investigatory stop. Id. at 1270, 1274 . Although the amendment is not applicable to this case, the 2008 Legislature broadened subsection 776.051(1) so as to prohibit the use of force to resist an officer in non-arrest situations. Ch. 2008-67, Laws of Fla. The amended statute provides: 776.051....

...Since the facts are insufficient to support a charge of disorderly conduct, we are also constrained to reverse the conviction for resisting an officer without violence. Id. No claim can be made that appellant’s actions after her arrest fall under the prohibition of section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1991), since, although appellant was initially charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, the trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal on the battery charge....

...[W]e just decided to take her to the station and put her in a holding cell." Section 784.07(2) provides an enhancement to the offense of battery under section 784.03(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by elevating the offense to a third-degree felony. Further, section 776.051(1) provides that a "person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer." Conversely, subsection (2) provides that a "law en...

...officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is unlawful." In Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1270 (Fla.2006), the court held: Because the prohibition in section 776.051(1) applies only to the use of force to resist arrest, the provision has no application against law enforcement officers under other circumstances....

...[W]e just decided to take her to the station and put her in a holding cell.” Section 784.07(2) provides an enhancement to the offense of battery under section 784.08(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by elevating the offense to a third-degree felony. Further, section 776.051(1) provides that a “person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.” Conversely, subsection (2) provides that a “...

...fficer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is unlawful.” In Tillman v. State, 934 So.2d 1263, 1270 (Fla.2006), the court held: Because the prohibition in section 776.051(1) applies only to the use of force to resist arrest, the provision has no application against law enforcement officers under other circumstances....

...Battery and Resisting with Violence Charges Waite further advances that because the wiretapping charges must be dismissed, so must the charges for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. We adamantly reject this assertion. Section 776.051(1), Florida Statutes, “prohibits the use of force to resist either arrest or the execution of a legal duty by a law enforcement officer unless the defendant can show that the officer was not acting in good faith.” King v. State, 120 So. 3d 108, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (per curiam) (citing A.W. v. State, 82 So. 3d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); see also Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263, 1269 (Fla. 2006), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (explaining that under section 776.051(1) citizens do not have the “right to resist an illegal arrest with force”)....