(510) 545-6515 — Free Consultation
(510) 545-6515
PC 148
Back to Home

Practice Area

Resisting Arrest

PC 148(a)(1) is the city’s most common add-on charge. Beat the underlying. The resisting falls with it.

By Ahmed S. Hasan·San Francisco Criminal Defense Attorney·Bar #364992·Updated May 2026

The Charge

Penal Code 148(a)(1) makes it a misdemeanor to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer or EMT in the lawful performance of their duties. Up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

The statute is broad on purpose. The District Attorney uses it to fill out reports when the underlying conduct — the reason the officer made contact in the first place — is thin. Three things matter:

  1. The officer must have been engaged in the lawful performance of duties.
  2. You must have willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed.
  3. You must have known or reasonably should have known the officer was performing those duties.

Pulling your arm away is not resisting. Asking questions is not delaying. Walking away from an unlawful detention is not obstructing.

Why This Charge Stacks

PC 148(a)(1) almost never travels alone. It rides on top of the original reason the officer made contact — a DUI, a public intoxication, a citation, a drug stop. The District Attorney uses the resisting charge as leverage. Plead to the underlying, and the resisting goes away.

The right move is the opposite. Attack the lawfulness of the contact. If the stop was bad — no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, an unlawful detention — the officer was not engaged in “lawful performance of duties.” That is a complete defense to PC 148(a)(1). Both charges fall together.

How These Cases Get Defended

The Underlying Stop Was Unlawful

A motion to suppress under PC 1538.5 attacks the legality of the stop or detention itself. Win that motion, and the officer was not lawfully performing duties — which means there was no resisting under the statute. The whole case unravels.

Excessive Force

An officer using excessive force is no longer engaged in lawful performance of duties. Pulling away from a chokehold. Trying to protect yourself when an officer goes too far. Body-worn camera footage often makes this case for the defense.

No Willful Conduct

Reflexes are not willful. Confusion is not willful. Limited English. Hearing loss. Mental health crisis. Intoxication. The conduct must be a knowing, voluntary act — and a lot of arrests do not meet that bar.

PC 1001.95 Misdemeanor Diversion

When trial defense is not the right path, PC 148(a)(1) is a strong candidate for judicial misdemeanor diversion under PC 1001.95. Complete the conditions the court tailors to the case — alternatives to incarceration the lawyer negotiates — and the case is dismissed. No guilty plea required.

Mental Health Diversion (PC 1001.36)

A mental health crisis at the moment of arrest is not resisting. It is a medical event the officer mishandled. PC 1001.36 treatment-based diversion ends in dismissal when a qualifying condition contributed to the offense.

What to Do Now

Preserve the body-worn camera footage. SFPD policy requires officers to record arrests. The footage is the case — for the prosecution and for the defense. Get a lawyer requesting it before it ages out.

Photograph any injuries. Bruises, scrapes, marks from cuffs — document everything within 24 hours. They fade.

Identify civilian witnesses. Bystanders, passengers, anyone who saw the contact. Their names and numbers matter more than they realize.

Do not post about it. Not on social media. Not in group chats. Anything you say, anything you write, becomes evidence.

Get a lawyer before arraignment. The motion to suppress strategy starts with the police report — and the police report is the first thing your lawyer reads.

Flat-Fee Resisting Arrest Defense: Starting at $2,800

Suppression motions. BWC review. Cross-examination of the arresting officer. Diversion enrollment. Every court appearance, all the way through resolution. One fee.

Schedule Free Consultation

(510) 545-6515 · ahmed@ashlegal.com

About the Author

Ahmed S. Hasan

San Francisco Criminal Defense Attorney · State Bar of California #364992

Ahmed S. Hasan is the founder of ASH Legal, a solo criminal defense practice based in San Francisco. The firm runs on flat-fee representation: one lawyer, one fee, from arraignment through resolution. No hourly billing. No surprise invoices.

Ahmed is a graduate of Emory University School of Law and a member in good standing of the State Bar of California (Bar #364992). His practice focuses on San Francisco misdemeanor defense — DUI, domestic violence, petty theft and shoplifting, drug possession, vandalism, trespassing, and assault and battery — with particular attention to diversion-track outcomes that end in dismissal under PC 1001.95, PC 1001.36 (Mental Health Diversion), PC 1001.80 (Military Diversion), and PC 1001.83 (Parental Caregiver Diversion).

Ahmed previously served as a post-bar clerk with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, the city's largest indigent-defense practice. He is a member of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley.

He represents clients at the San Francisco Hall of Justice (850 Bryant Street) and the Civic Center Courthouse. The ASH Legal office is at 15 Boardman Place, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Free 30-minute consultations are available by phone or Zoom. (510) 545-6515 · ahmed@ashlegal.com