PC 69 Charges in California: What You Need to Know
Understand how California's PC 69 charge is applied, its legal implications, and what to expect if you're facing this type of allegation.
Charges under California Penal Code Section 69, involving resisting or threatening executive officers, are serious matters with potentially significant legal consequences, even when no physical harm occurs. These cases often turn on the specific actions taken and how law enforcement and prosecutors interpret them.
Understanding the nature of a Penal Code 69 charge is crucial for anyone facing such allegations. The outcomes can differ greatly based on the incident’s details and the defense presented.
Elements of the Offense
To convict someone under California Penal Code Section 69, the prosecution must prove certain elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The law describes two ways the offense can occur: attempting to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing duties through threats or violence, or actively resisting an executive officer with force or violence during the performance of their duties.
A key aspect is the status of the person targeted, who must be an “executive officer.” This includes police officers, sheriff’s deputies, district attorneys, judges, and other officials performing executive functions. The prosecution must show the individual held such a position and was lawfully performing their duties at the time. If an officer uses excessive force or acts unlawfully, they are not considered to be lawfully performing their duties, a requirement for a conviction under this statute.
When the charge involves attempting to deter or prevent an officer, the prosecution must demonstrate the defendant willfully used violence or a threat of violence with the specific intent to stop the officer from carrying out a lawful duty, potentially including future duties. If a threat is involved, it must be one a reasonable person would see as a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence. The defendant does not need the actual ability to carry out the threat.
Alternatively, if the charge centers on resisting an officer, the prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly used force or violence to resist the executive officer. This requires showing the defendant knew the person was an executive officer performing their duty. “Force or violence” is interpreted broadly and can include offensive touching, similar to battery; causing injury is not required. The focus is on the knowing use of force or violence to oppose the officer’s lawful actions as they happen.
Potential Penalties
A conviction under Penal Code Section 69 can lead to significant penalties because it is a “wobbler” offense. Prosecutors can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony, based on the incident’s severity and the defendant’s criminal history. This decision greatly affects potential sentencing.
As a misdemeanor, a violation can result in up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Misdemeanor sentencing often includes summary probation for three to five years, requiring compliance with court orders like obeying laws or attending programs.
If charged as a felony, the potential penalties increase. A felony conviction carries a sentence of 16 months, two years, or three years, typically served in county jail under California’s realignment laws, unless prior convictions mandate state prison. A fine up to $10,000 can also be imposed. Felony convictions may involve formal probation with stricter supervision if imprisonment is not ordered.
Court Proceedings
The court process for a Penal Code Section 69 charge involves several stages, starting after arrest and potentially leading to a trial unless resolved earlier.
Arraignment
The arraignment is the first court appearance, usually held within 48 hours of arrest (excluding weekends and holidays). The judge informs the defendant of the specific charges (misdemeanor or felony Penal Code 69), advises them of their constitutional rights, including the right to an attorney, and appoints counsel if the defendant cannot afford one. The defendant enters an initial plea (guilty, not guilty, or no contest). Bail or release conditions are also determined at this hearing.
Pretrial Motions
After arraignment, both sides prepare their cases and may file pretrial motions, asking the court to rule on legal issues before trial. Common motions include a motion to suppress evidence obtained through an allegedly unlawful search or seizure. If the defense argues the officer used excessive force (meaning the officer was not acting lawfully), a Pitchess motion might be filed. This seeks discovery of the officer’s confidential personnel records for evidence of prior misconduct, like excessive force complaints. Filing requires showing “good cause.” For felony charges, a motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing might also occur.
Trial
If the case doesn’t resolve through plea bargaining or dismissal, it goes to trial. Defendants have the right to a jury trial, where 12 community members decide guilt, or a bench trial, where only the judge decides. The process includes jury selection, opening statements, presentation of evidence by the prosecution (aiming to prove the elements of Penal Code 69), cross-examination, presentation of defense evidence, closing arguments, and jury instructions based on the law.1California Courts Self Help Guide. Criminal Trial Overview The jury must reach a unanimous verdict. If they cannot agree, it results in a mistrial.
Differences From Related Charges
Penal Code Section 69 is distinct from other offenses involving interactions with officials. It specifically targets attempts to deter officers with threats or violence, or active resistance using force or violence.
A common comparison is Penal Code Section 148(a)(1), often called “resisting arrest.” This charge covers willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer or emergency technician, which can include non-violent acts like fleeing or providing false information. Penal Code 69 requires proof of threats or actual force/violence directed at an “executive officer.”
Penal Code Section 71 prohibits threatening public officials or employees to influence their official actions through fear. While both involve threats, Penal Code 71 focuses on improperly influencing an official’s actions, requires a direct threat that seems credible to the recipient, and applies to a broader range of public servants. Penal Code 69’s threat prong focuses on deterring an executive officer from performing a duty, and the defendant’s intent to deter is key.
Assault (Penal Code Section 240) or battery (Penal Code Section 242) against a peace officer are also distinct. While the “force or violence” in Penal Code 69’s resistance prong can overlap with battery, Penal Code 69 requires that the force was used specifically to resist a known officer performing lawful duties. Similarly, attempting to deter an officer with violence under Penal Code 69 requires the specific intent to prevent the officer from performing a duty, an element not present in simple assault on an officer.
Collateral Effects
A conviction under Penal Code Section 69 can lead to consequences beyond court-imposed penalties, affecting life long after the sentence ends.
Employment opportunities can be impacted. While California’s Fair Chance Act limits when employers can ask about convictions, a felony Penal Code 69 conviction can still be a barrier, especially for jobs requiring security clearances, working with vulnerable populations, or in law enforcement. Employers considering rescinding a job offer based on a conviction must conduct an individualized assessment. Recent laws automatically seal many older felony records, but exceptions exist.
Professional licensing boards (for fields like medicine, law, teaching) can deny, suspend, or revoke licenses based on convictions substantially related to the profession’s duties. A Penal Code 69 conviction, particularly a felony involving violence, might be deemed related, requiring case-by-case evaluation considering rehabilitation and time passed.
Firearm rights are severely affected by a felony Penal Code 69 conviction. California law (Penal Code section 29800) imposes a lifetime ban on owning or possessing firearms for anyone convicted of a felony. Federal law has similar restrictions. A misdemeanor conviction does not automatically trigger this ban, but other restrictions might apply.
For non-U.S. citizens, a Penal Code 69 conviction can have serious immigration consequences, potentially leading to deportation, denial of entry, or denial of naturalization. Whether it qualifies as a “crime involving moral turpitude” or an “aggravated felony” depends on the specifics and legal interpretation. Non-citizens facing these charges need specialized immigration advice.
Housing opportunities may also be affected. While laws prohibit blanket bans based on criminal records, landlords and housing authorities can consider recent convictions, especially felonies involving violence like Penal Code 69, if they determine the applicant poses a direct threat after an individualized assessment.
When to Seek Legal Counsel
Anyone facing investigation or arrest for potentially violating Penal Code Section 69 should seek legal counsel immediately. The time right after an incident or arrest is critical.
Engaging an attorney before speaking with police is vital. You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney during questioning. Asserting these rights stops interrogation until a lawyer is present, protecting you from self-incrimination.
Legal counsel is necessary even if the charges seem minor or unfounded. Penal Code Section 69’s status as a “wobbler” means early intervention by an attorney might influence whether prosecutors file misdemeanor or felony charges, or any charges at all.
The complexities of a Penal Code 69 charge—determining if the officer was an “executive officer” acting lawfully, if the actions constituted “force or violence” or a credible “threat,” and assessing intent—require professional legal analysis. An experienced attorney can identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and navigate the legal standards.
If you cannot afford an attorney, the court must appoint one. Request court-appointed counsel at the arraignment. Accessing legal representation promptly is crucial for building an effective defense.
