The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeals, located in Texarkana, Texas recently ruled on a case that involved members of the Texas A&M University – Commerce Police Department.
Candice Pumphrey v. State of Texas was an appeal submitted in December 2007, then heard and ruled on in late January. Pumphrey appealed the conviction she received from the trial court of misdemeanor resisting arrest. The court assessed punishment to Pumphrey at thirty days incarceration, twelve months probation, a $250 fine and $264 in court case.
The resisting arrest charge stemmed from an incident that took place on the A&M-C campus during homecoming festivities.
According to court documents, the confrontation started “when Pumphrey, while waiting to enter the dance, uttered some obscenities and was told by a security guard that she could not take a camera in. Those obscenities were directed at her boyfriend because it was cold outside, and the boyfriend refused her request that he take the camera back to the car for her.”
Officer Lance Sharp observed Pumphrey’s obscenities and told her to watch her language. Pumphrey then looked at Sharp and said, “F*** you.” Sharp testified that he then approached her and asked her if there was a problem, to which she replied, “I’m not f****ng talking to you.” When Pumphrey replied with obscenities directed at Sharp, he told her she was under arrest, and then grasped her wrist, and attempted to take her into custody for disorderly conduct.
When arresting individuals, it is customary for police officers to take individuals to the ground and handcuff them. However, Sharp decided not to do this for three reasons, which were stated in court records. First, they were standing on concrete floors; second, Pumphrey was wearing a short skirt. Lastly, if Sharp had brought Pumphrey to the ground, it would have posed a possible safety issue to him, because of the large crowd of people that were waiting to get into the dance.
When Sharp attempted to handcuff Pumphrey, she “immediately started pulling away and jerking.” Sharp kept his grasp on her wrist, and attempted to move behind her to get her arms behind her, but she “refused” his efforts, “actually turning in circles” to keep Sharp from securing her arms behind her back.
Pumphrey claimed in the appeal that the evidence showed that she was not being cooperative, but did not get to the level of resisting arrest.
Though the argument of what exactly resisting arrest entails, the appeals court found that “the statute authorizes a conviction for resisting arrest when the defendant actively pulls against an officer’s established grasp of the defendant during an arrest attempt.”
It was the court’s decision that because Pumphrey forcefully pulled away from Sharp’s grasp, “her conviction must stand.”
The court added, “Pumphrey did more than merely pull away from the officer. She jerked, she squirmed, she twisted, she turned, and she struggled, all against the officer’s efforts to physically restrain her in the process of making the arrest. Those actions also sufficiently support the conviction. Because legally and factually sufficient evidence supports Pumphrey’s conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
Perhaps the most intriguing part of the court ruling, was not the original nature of Pumphrey’s case, but instead the legal ramifications that the ruling now carries in Texas law. The ruling helped to give better definition of what can be characterized as resisting arrest. As a result of the appeals case, the ruling will be used as precedent in the future should questions arise in other areas of Texas concerning cases that involve resisting arrest.
The case will also be used by Texas law enforcement academies when students are studying about resisting arrest, and what falls under the topic of resisting arrest.
Overall, the Pumphrey v. State of Texas has proven to be a landmark case, and in the process, it has helped to better define what can be considered resisting arrest.