DENNIS S. RUGGLES, AND JOYCE D. SEAGLE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ruggles and Seagle were convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the lawfulness of an arrest is generally irrelevant when a person resists with violence against a known law enforcement officer.
The court held that even if an arrest is illegal, a person still has no right to commit battery upon or violently resist a law enforcement officer when they have reason to know the person is an officer. The legality of the arrest is generally irrelevant to liability for these offenses.
[1] A person who resists an arrest with violence and has reason to know the arresting person is a law enforcement officer is guilty of the offense, even if the arrest was ill…
[2] There is no right to commit a battery upon a law enforcement officer.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is no right to commit a battery upon a law enforcement officer.”
Establishes the core legal principle that violence against law enforcement officers is never justified, regardless of arrest legality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputies encountered Ruggles and Seagle on the side of the road. Seagle pushed the deputy, who identified herself and pushed back, placing Seagle unde…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legality Of Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Dennis Scott Ruggles and Joyce D. Sea-gle appeal their convictions for the offenses of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. We affirm.
If a person resists an arrest with violence and has reason to know the person seeking to arrest him or her is an officer of the law, the fact that the arrest was illegal is generally irrelevant. “There is no right to commit a battery upon a law enforcement officer.” State v. Roux, 702 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Lowery v. State, 356 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (appellant’s argument that the arresting officer was outside his jurisdiction misses the point; it matters not whether the arrest was lawful because the defendant resisted arrest with violence); see also, Norton v. State, 691 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 698 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1997); State v. Gilchrist, 458 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); c.f. Taylor v. State, 740 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violencé reversed where state failed to specifically charge that the defendant was resisting an arrest and the state could not otherwise justify the officer’s intrusion into the defendant’s home). Here, the deputy testified that she identified herself as a deputy and had her badge on when she encountered the appellants on the side of the road. When Sea-gle approached the deputy and pushed her, the deputy pushed her back and told her she was under arrest. When Ruggles then grabbed the deputy by the throat, she informed him that he was also under arrest. Both the appellants continued to be physically aggressive with the deputy until backup units arrived at the scene. During the encounter, Ruggles also threatened to kill the deputy with “[her] own gun” for which he was additionally charged with aggravated assault and convicted of the lesser offense of assault.1
Even if the appellants’ arrests were invalid because the deputy was off-duty and of a neighboring county, the appellants are still guilty of the offenses charged because neither of them had any right to use violence against the officer during their attempted arrest.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . The conviction for assault was not challenged here or below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lennear v. State, 784 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…for any person to possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage or consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a vehicle in the state or while a passenger in or on a vehicle being operated in the state. (Emphasis added). . Ruggles v. State, 757 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Lee v. State, 368 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . State v. Barnard, 405 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). . Reed v. State, 606 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Jones v. State, 570 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).…
-
Milliron v. State, 274 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Lowery v. State, 356 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Clauson Conway Taylor v. State, 740 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Roux, 702 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- State v. Gilchrist, 458 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Norton v. State, 691 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)