Bad Elk v. United States
1900 U.S. LEXIS 1823, 177 U.S. 529, 20 S. Ct. 729 (1900)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual has the right to use reasonably necessary force to resist an unlawful arrest. If an officer is killed during such resistance, the offense is reduced from murder to manslaughter because the attempted arrest was illegal.
Facts:
- On March 8, 1899, John Bad Elk, an Indian policeman on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, fired his gun into the air 'for fun'.
- Captain Gleason, an 'additional farmer' on the reservation, heard the shots and later confronted Bad Elk, who admitted to the shooting.
- Gleason told Bad Elk to come to his office to discuss the matter, but Bad Elk did not appear.
- Several days later, Gleason verbally ordered three Indian policemen, including John Kills Back, to arrest Bad Elk without a warrant or any formal charge.
- The policemen attempted to arrest Bad Elk, who said he would go with them in the morning.
- The policemen, armed, continued to follow Bad Elk and surrounded his mother's house that evening.
- A confrontation occurred outside the house between Bad Elk and the policemen.
- During the confrontation, Bad Elk shot and killed John Kills Back.
Procedural Posture:
- John Bad Elk was prosecuted by the United States for murder in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota.
- At trial, defense counsel's request for a jury instruction that the attempted arrest was illegal and Bad Elk had a right to resist was denied.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the deceased officer had a right to make the arrest and that Bad Elk had no right to resist.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Bad Elk of murder.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Bad Elk to be hanged.
- Bad Elk brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to review the conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person have the right to resist an unlawful warrantless arrest for a past misdemeanor, making it a prejudicial error for a trial court to instruct the jury that the person had no right to resist?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Peckham
Yes. An individual has a right to resist an unlawful arrest, and it was a prejudicial error for the trial court to instruct the jury otherwise. The attempted arrest of Bad Elk was unlawful because, at common law and under relevant statutes, a peace officer cannot make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor that was not committed in the officer's presence. Firing a gun 'for fun' had not been shown to be a crime, and even if it were a misdemeanor, it did not occur in the presence of the arresting officers, nor was a warrant issued. Because the officers had no legal authority to arrest him, Bad Elk had the right to use such force as was reasonably necessary to resist the illegal attempt. The trial court's charge that the officer had a right to arrest and Bad Elk had no right to resist was a material error that 'placed the transaction in a false light before the jury' and denied Bad Elk his rights. The law distinguishes between a killing during a lawful arrest (which could be murder) and a killing during an unlawful arrest (which is reduced to manslaughter).
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental common law principle that a citizen may resist an unlawful arrest with reasonable force. It clarifies that this right serves as a crucial check on the power of law enforcement, requiring officers to adhere to constitutional and statutory warrant requirements. By reducing a homicide committed during resistance to an illegal arrest from murder to manslaughter, the Court underscores the gravity of an officer acting outside the bounds of the law. The ruling emphasizes that erroneous jury instructions on such a fundamental right are considered prejudicial and constitute grounds for reversal, as they fundamentally alter the legal framework within which a jury evaluates a defendant's actions.
