Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Commonwealth v. Biagini

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
655 A.2d 492 (1995)


Facts

Officer Snyder was on patrol when he heard yelling and saw Bruce Biagini (defendant) stagger out from between two houses. When Snyder approached and asked about the shouting, Biagini said that nothing was wrong and went inside his house. Two nearby individuals told Snyder that Biagini had been screaming at them and had thrown a glass bottle. Snyder returned to Biagini’s house and knocked on the door. Snyder asked Biagini to go outside, but Biagini refused and angrily told Snyder to leave. Snyder attempted to arrest Biagini for public intoxication and disorderly conduct, but Biagini escaped from Snyder’s grasp and went back inside. Snyder called for backup and again knocked on the door. Biagini again refused to go outside, and when Snyder attempted the arrest, Biagini struggled with and punched Snyder but was soon restrained by backup officers. Biagini was charged with public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest. Under Pennsylvania law, a defendant commits the crime of resisting arrest when creating a substantial risk of harm with the intention of preventing a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest. In addition, § 505(b)(1)(i) states that the use of force is not justifiable to resist an arrest that a defendant knows is being made by a police officer, even if the arrest is unlawful. At trial, Biagini argued for dismissal of all charges on the grounds that the arrest was illegal. Biagini was convicted of all charges. After trial, Biagini again moved for dismissal, but the trial court denied the motion, concluding that the arrest was lawful. Biagini appealed, and the court held that the arrest for disorderly conduct and public intoxication was unlawful, because Biagini’s actions did not rise to the level of endangering himself or others. However, the conviction for resisting arrest was affirmed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Cappy, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.