The offense of resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape from custody was formerly designated Article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. After the renumbering that took effect at the end of 2019, it is now Article 87a, codified at 10 U.S.C. 887a, while current Article 95 (10 U.S.C. 895) addresses offenses by a sentinel or lookout. The statute itself is short: any person subject to the code who resists apprehension, breaks arrest, or escapes from custody may be punished as a court-martial directs. The question of whether a passive refusal to walk along with an apprehending officer amounts to “resistance” turns on what the offense of resisting apprehension actually requires, and the answer is more nuanced than many service members expect.
What “resisting apprehension” requires
Apprehension in the military is the act of taking a person into custody, the rough equivalent of a civilian arrest. To convict an accused of resisting apprehension, the government must prove that a person attempted to apprehend the accused, that the person was authorized to do so, and that the accused actively resisted that apprehension. The operative word is active. Resistance under this clause contemplates some affirmative act directed against the apprehension, such as physically struggling, striking the officer, pulling away forcefully, fleeing, or otherwise overcoming or thwarting the officer’s effort to take the accused into custody.
Courts and the Manual for Courts-Martial draw a meaningful line between active resistance and mere unresponsiveness. Reflexive or involuntary movements are not resistance. A person who simply stands still, goes limp, or declines to move on command has not necessarily committed an affirmative act of resistance, because nothing the person did defeated or actively opposed the apprehension itself.
Why passive refusal usually falls short of resistance
Passive refusal to accompany an officer, by definition, lacks the affirmative opposition that the resisting-apprehension clause targets. Refusing to walk, refusing to stand up, or remaining silent and inert is an omission rather than the kind of active conduct the clause was written to punish. If the apprehension is nonetheless accomplished, for example because the officers physically carry or guide the person away, the passivity did not prevent the apprehension; it merely made it more inconvenient. For that reason, a purely passive failure to cooperate generally does not, standing alone, satisfy the elements of resisting apprehension.
That conclusion is not absolute. The line between passive and active can blur quickly. If the so-called refusal includes any affirmative physical component, such as locking arms around a fixed object, bracing or tensing against the officers in a way that requires force to overcome, twisting away, or pulling against restraints, the conduct can cross into active resistance. The label a person attaches to the behavior does not control; the question is whether the accused engaged in an affirmative act that opposed the apprehension.
The conduct may still be charged under another theory
Even where passive refusal does not amount to resistance under this article, the conduct is rarely consequence-free, because other punitive articles may apply. A refusal to obey a lawful order to accompany or submit can be charged as failure to obey a lawful order under Article 92, which requires proof that a lawful order was given, that the accused knew of it, and that the accused failed to obey. If the refusal interferes with the officers’ duties, it may implicate offenses related to obstructing or interfering with law enforcement or military police functions, depending on the facts. In short, the government often has alternative charging avenues that do not depend on proving active resistance.
There is also the related but distinct offense of breach of arrest and escape from custody under the same article. Once a person has actually been apprehended and is in custody, freeing oneself from that custody, even by walking away, can constitute escape, which has its own elements and does not require active resistance to the original apprehension. Passive conduct before custody attaches is analyzed differently from conduct after custody has been established.
How the timing and the officer’s authority matter
Two factual points frequently decide these cases. First is timing: was the accused resisting an attempt to apprehend, or refusing to comply after apprehension was already complete? Resisting-apprehension liability focuses on the moment the officer is attempting to take the person into custody. Second is the apprehending official’s authority. The government must show the person was authorized to apprehend the accused. If the accused did not know and had no reason to know of the official’s authority, that can bear on whether any opposition was a knowing resistance to a lawful apprehension.
How a defense approaches a resistance charge built on passivity
A defense attorney confronting a resisting-apprehension charge premised on passive behavior will press the government to identify the affirmative act of resistance. Counsel will examine body-camera footage, witness accounts, and the apprehending officers’ reports to determine whether the accused did anything beyond failing to cooperate. If the record shows only inaction, limpness, or reflexive movement, the defense will argue the active-resistance element is unmet and seek dismissal or acquittal on that specification, while remaining alert to whether the government can prove an alternative theory such as failure to obey a lawful order.
Bottom line
Passive refusal to accompany an apprehending officer is generally not, by itself, resistance under this article, because resisting apprehension requires an affirmative act that actively opposes or defeats the apprehension, and pure inaction or going limp ordinarily does not meet that standard. The analysis is fact-intensive, however, and any physical bracing, pulling, or struggling can convert passivity into active resistance. Even when the resistance element fails, the same refusal may support a separate charge such as failure to obey a lawful order, and conduct occurring after custody has attached may raise escape questions. Because the outcome depends on precisely what the accused did and when, a service member facing such a charge should consult a military defense attorney to scrutinize the record against the specific elements of the offense.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.