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.
It is San Francisco’s most common add-on charge, and it almost never travels alone — which is also why it is often beatable.
What PC 148(a)(1) Says
PC 148(a)(1) makes it a crime to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer or EMT who is in the lawful performance of their duties. The statute is broad on purpose, and the District Attorney often uses it to fill out a report when the underlying conduct — the reason the officer made contact in the first place — is thin.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
Three things: that the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of duties; that you willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed; and that you knew 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) rides on top of the original reason the officer made contact — a DUI, a public-intoxication stop, a citation, a drug stop. The District Attorney uses it as leverage: plead to the underlying, and the resisting goes away. The stronger move is the opposite — attack the lawfulness of the contact, because if the stop was bad, the officer was not in the lawful performance of duties, and both charges fall together.
Penalties
PC 148(a)(1) is a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine.
Defenses
- The underlying stop was unlawful. A motion to suppress under PC 1538.5 attacks the legality of the stop. Win it, and the officer was not lawfully performing duties — a complete defense to PC 148(a)(1). Both charges unravel.
- Excessive force. An officer using excessive force is no longer in the lawful performance of duties. Body-worn camera footage often makes this defense.
- No willful conduct. Reflexes, confusion, limited English, hearing loss, or a mental-health crisis can all mean the conduct was not a knowing, voluntary act.
- Intoxication is not a defense. Because resisting or obstructing an officer (PC 148) is a general-intent crime, voluntary intoxication is not a defense — under Penal Code § 29.4, intoxication evidence goes only to a specific-intent element, which PC 148 does not have.
- Judicial diversion (PC 1001.95) and mental health diversion (PC 1001.36) — both end in dismissal for eligible cases. See our resisting arrest defense page.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is PC 148(a)(1) resisting arrest?
Penal Code 148(a)(1) makes it a misdemeanor to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer or EMT who is in the lawful performance of their duties. It carries up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine.
What does the prosecution have to prove on a resisting charge?
Three things: that the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of duties; that you willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed; and that you knew or reasonably should have known the officer was performing those duties. Pulling your arm away or walking away from an unlawful detention does not meet that bar.
If the police stop was unlawful, does the resisting charge fall?
Yes. If the underlying stop or detention was unlawful, the officer was not in the lawful performance of duties, which is a complete defense to PC 148(a)(1). A motion to suppress under PC 1538.5 attacks the stop, and if it wins, both the underlying charge and the resisting charge fall together.
Can a PC 148 case be dismissed through diversion?
Yes. When trial defense is not the right path, PC 148(a)(1) is a strong candidate for judicial misdemeanor diversion under PC 1001.95, which ends in dismissal with no guilty plea. Mental health diversion under PC 1001.36 applies where a qualifying condition contributed to the arrest.
GuidesComplete Guide to California Misdemeanors · Glossary · Penalties Reference.
Free 30-Minute Consultation
Beat the underlying stop and the resisting charge falls with it. Tell me what happened and I will tell you where the case is soft.
Schedule Free ConsultationAbout 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