What Does Battery On Leo Mean

Physically assaulting a police officer, sheriff’s officer, or any other peace officer is a crime charge known as “battery on law enforcement officer” (LEO). If the offender assaults a fireman, they may additionally be charged with this offence. This is a highly serious offense that carries a maximum five-year prison term.

It is in your best advantage to promptly retain a knowledgeable Marion County criminal defense attorney to represent you if you have been accused of battery on a law enforcement officer.

Our criminal defense team at Dunham & Ingram assists clients in Marion County and Ocala. We are aware of the law and the many consequences of being accused of a crime against a police officer or other member of the legal system. We are prepared to vigorously defend you and will put in unwavering effort to have their case resolved favorably thanks to our expert knowledge of both sides of the legal system.

Charged with Battery on LEO in Ocala, FL?

A third-degree felony conviction is possible for someone accused of assaulting a police officer or firefighter. There are times when a police officer utilizes this accusation to take control of a legal matter, even though the vast majority of officers are honorable and dedicated to maintaining the peace. The prosecution of suspected offenses as serious as felonious battery is already extensively pursued in court with the purpose of imposing the harshest punishments, so this can work even more adversely against the defendant than usual. The idea of a police officer being attacked can make the situation worse.

Being the accused party in such a situation might lead to people coming to the conclusion that you are “guilty” before any evidence has been presented to the court. The most important step you can do to increase your chances of a successful conclusion of your case is to hire an experienced attorney to defend you. You must make sure that a committed attorney zealously defends and upholds your rights and liberties.

Contact an Ocala criminal lawyer from Dunham & Ingram today and fill out a free case evaluation to discover more about your defense choices if you have questions or concerns about your specific circumstance and how using the efforts of our firm can help.

What does a Leo’s battery do?

Section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes defines the crime of battery on a police officer or member of the law enforcement. According to the law, battery on a law enforcement officer takes place when:

  • the defendant willfully causes bodily harm by touching or striking a police officer or other law enforcement personnel against that person’s will;
  • The defendant is aware that the alleged victim was a police officer or law enforcement official;
  • When the defendant committed the battery, the law enforcement or police officer was acting legally in the course of his or her duty.
  • FL Standard Jury Instruction (Crime) 8.11

Meaning of ‘Law Enforcement Officer’

The phrase “Law enforcement officer” as used in Section 784.07 can refer to any of the following:

  • officers in prisons;
  • Explorers in law enforcement
  • officers who monitor traffic;
  • cops who monitor parking
  • police and corrections personnel who work part-time;
  • auxiliary police forces;
  • auxiliary correctional personnel;
  • officers of probation;
  • workers in the Department of Corrections who look after or assist prisoners;
  • officers of the federal police;
  • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employees.

Other Protected Officials

Numerous additional categories of public servants and authorities are subject to the particular safeguards provided to police officers under Section 784.07. Among the most popular categories are:

  • providers of emergency medical services;
  • Employees of public transportation (such as bus and train drivers, toll collectors, maintenance workers, and managers employed by transit authorities);
  • Staff members of Community College Security.

Penalties

A third-degree felony is defined as battery on a police officer. As a result, the offense carries a maximum 5-year prison sentence or 5-year probation sentence, as well as a $5,000 fine.

When a defendant commits aggravated battery, the crime is escalated to a first-degree felony, with a maximum 30-year jail sentence.

A minimum mandatory prison sentence of five years is imposed on anyone found guilty of severe battery against a police officer.

See Florida Statutes Section 784.07(2)(d).

Self-Defense

Self-defense is applicable in cases of battery on a law enforcement officer as long as there is no possibility of an arrest, as is explained below. Visit our website’s page on self-defense in Florida for further details.

Officer Not engaged in Lawful Duty

The State must demonstrate that the officer was properly carrying out a legal function at the time of the act in order to support a conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer. A conviction for violence on a law enforcement officer cannot be upheld if an officer conducts an illegal detention or frisk.

This defense, however, is only effective when the officer is not making an arrest.

109, 110 Meeks v. State, 369 So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). A person is not justified in using force to obstruct an arrest by a law enforcement official who is known to be one or who looks to be one in accordance with Section 776.051(1).

Therefore, even if the arrest was unlawful, a defendant cannot be justified in using force unless that force is used to retaliate for the officer’s excessive use of force.

Private Sector Employment

Although a defendant can often conduct battery against a law enforcement officer while the officer is working off-duty for a private company, a conviction necessitates that the officer be carrying out their responsibilities legally. State v. J.A.S.R., 967 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Therefore, the act of stopping a battle between two combatants by an official represents the authorized performance of a duty, and the crime can be committed. 11 So. 3d 401 (S.D. v. State) (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Contrarily, when an officer is only taking a belligerent patron (who had not committed any crime) from an amusement park, he or she is not doing such duties (and the infraction cannot be committed). State v. J.A.S.R., 11 So. 3d at 1051

Incidental Touching

  • while the defendant is moving to avoid being smashed to the ground or pressed up against a patrol car;
  • when the actions are taken to fend off a third party attack;
  • when the defendant makes unintended, accidental movements of their body while avoiding making direct eye contact with anyone.

Excessive Force

However, any excessive force used by the officer may be violently resisted in accordance with the general rules of self-defense. This is true whether the arrest is legal or illegal. State v. Jackson, 463 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Even when an arrest is legal, this is true.

How long does a Leo’s battery last?

A third-degree felony charge of battery on a law enforcement officer carries a maximum five-year jail sentence, five years of probation, and a $5,000 fine. Even for first-time offenders, this crime is one of the most severely prosecuted infractions. It is imperative to seek legal counsel if you are accused of battery on a LEO. Evidence of the alleged battery on a LEO can be gathered with the aid of an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

A criminal defense attorney may dispute the charge using one of a few possible defenses to this one. Self-defense, employment in the private sector, and unintentional touching are all frequent. Additionally, the accusation may be withdrawn if the defense can show that the officer was not carrying out his or her legal duty or was abusing their authority. Similar to this, defense counsel for criminal cases may try to show that one of the three essential elements of the allegation was not proven, such as by demonstrating ignorance of the accused victim’s status as a law enforcement official.

The charge becomes a first-degree felony if the defendant’s actions qualify as aggravating battery.

What does a LEO being assaulted mean?

Mandatory minimum sentences and elevating lesser offenses to felonies are two of the most effective methods of mass incarceration. Both of these tools are combined in Virginia’s Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) Act. In Virginia, an assault is often considered a misdemeanor, which carries a fine or a maximum sentence of 12 months in jail. Contrarily, our Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer Act elevates the same offense to a felony punishable by a minimum sentence of six months in jail.

Mandatory minimum sentences prevent judges and juries from imposing a sentence that is suitable given the particular facts of the case. The elevated punishment structure of this statute, however, has additional unsettling effects on the criminal justice system: (1) It gives police officers extraordinary power to punish those who insult or disobey them, including people of color who are the victims of excessive force; and (2) It intimidates defendants into accepting plea deals when they would rather go to trial. The elimination of the harsher punishments for assault on law enforcement would be justified by any one of these outcomes. Combining them makes doing so a need for racial fairness and criminal justice reform.

White America has just recently started to comprehend what Black and Brown people have known for ages. Individuals of color are frequently treated differently by police than white people. When individuals disagree with them or insult them, some police officers think violence and escalation are the proper reactions. Because they are accused of using excessive force or violating the rights of the individuals they are meant to be protecting, many officers lie, which is why so many of them do. Police have been granted a lot of power, and some of them often misuse that power.

Police officers frequently accuse the people they mistreat of crimes, which is one way in which they misuse their authority. One key tactic used by the police to intimidate and silence their victims is the ability to accuse them of crimes. According to Virginia law, assault on a law enforcement officer can be proven even in the absence of physical harm. A small touching or even making an officer fearful of hostile or angry physical contact can result in a charge that, if proven guilty, carries a mandatory six-month prison sentence. As both require the mandatory six-month sentence, the law treats a bump with the shoulder or elbow just as seriously as a punch to the face. These accusations are frequently made against individuals who were intoxicated, suffering from a mental illness, or terrified of the threat they believed the police posed to them. This means that even a small amount of contact with an officer during an arrest might be used as justification for the officer to file further charges and put the accused’s safety in peril.

Officers have been accused of assaulting law enforcement in situations where:

An officer was “pushed” by a client in handcuffs, according to video evidence (another cop had previously pushed the client towards his colleague);

A suspect was tackled by an officer, and the suspect’s elbow caused the officer’s spectacles to fall to the ground;

When the policeman arrived to investigate a burglary, the suspect pointed a butter knife in his direction;

At court, a man with a cane rubbed shoulders with his arresting officer on the way to the restroom;

being forcibly arrested for allegedly kicking a cop in the face while they were on the ground;

dozens of people charged with elbowing police when they were trying to bind the suspects’ arms behind their backs;

When confronted by police while attempting to enter his own home, a 14-year-old was pushed to the ground for refusing to cooperate.

These are just a few instances of how this law is put into action, and each of them corresponds to what the officer said actually occurred. Of course, the accused always had their own explanation for what happened. However, the idea that any of these crimes justifies a felony conviction and a minimum jail sentence of six months represents the mentality that has resulted in mass imprisonment.

Several variables will determine whether this offense will be prosecuted. The police chose to stop someone that evening. Did the police officer decide to make an arrest out of that incident or did they just let the person leave with a warning or a ticket? Does the police officer say they touched him or scared him? Does the officer decide to notify the magistrate of a felony offense? The officer has the ability to decide on each of these options. A prime example of how the law contributes to the racial disparities we observe in arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates is the broad discretion with which laws are enforced.

The link between charges of Assault on Law Enforcement and police use of force also contributes to this imbalance. The use of force by police against Black persons is disproportionate, according to data. For instance, Fairfax County, the largest jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, recently disclosed that despite making up less than 10% of the county’s population, Black individuals were the targets of 46% of police use of force incidents in 2019. The growing use of force and other escalation techniques against people of color, along with the bias that results from some officers considering Black people as more threatening than non-Black individuals, increases the possibility that Black persons will be charged with Assault on Law Enforcement.

We regularly witness the authority that the cops exercise. Police have the authority to choose who to stop, what to look into and interrogate, and who to arrest. The inherent bias that we are all taught to accept by our society affects even well-intentioned cops. And as we’ve seen, some police officers expressly consider Black people as dangers and criminals rather than as fellow humans deserving of respect and decency. Police have too much power thanks to a law that allows them to use an arrest as justification for filing a felony charge with a six-month mandatory sentence. Eliminating that discretion would be an effective criminal justice reform and a question of racial fairness.

When the accused appears before the magistrate, the Assault on LEO statute’s discretion does not stop. The court system has broad control over the pre-trial rights that the accused has. When the magistrate and judge at the arraignment hold the accused without bond due to the nature of the charge, the frustration of being unfairly detained and prosecuted intensifies. The accused typically remains in custody for several days as they wait for a bond hearing, an attorney to be named or retained, and for that lawyer to submit and defend a bond motion. If the court rejects the application, which it frequently does while describing the violation as a “violent felony,” those days could extend into months or even longer. Spending days, weeks, or months behind bars can have disastrous effects, especially on the lives of the impoverished. Short- to medium-term incarceration has a number of unintended consequences, including job loss, eviction (and the resulting loss and destruction of property), and even child removal. Even if there is no conviction, an assault charge against a law enforcement officer has serious consequences. There is a racial justice component at this stage of the proceedings, as there is at every point in the criminal justice system, as studies show that Black people are more likely to be held pretrial than their white counterparts.

The impact that these sentencing ranges have on the accused has been observed by those of us who routinely practice criminal law. The same astonishment and fear are always the response. “How is this crime subject to such severe punishment? A trial is too risky for me. What would occur if they trusted the police? The Trial Penalty is the result of this impact. An accused person will exert all of their efforts to avoid a trial if the penalty for losing at trial are severe enough. Clients who are accused of assaulting law enforcement are aware that a trial would typically pit their testimony against that of one or more police officers. Our clients are aware that the results of such trials are inherently uncertain. Because of this, even innocent defendants frequently enter guilty pleas to less serious crimes like simple assault to avoid going to jail for a significant amount of time if they are found guilty of a felony.

The most significant right in our criminal justice system is the right to a trial by jury. The criminal justice system stops functioning effectively when the law establishes consequences that are so severe that innocent persons are discouraged from having their day in court. In America, more than 95% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining, with one of the main causes being harsh and mandatory sentences.

At every stage of the criminal justice process, this statute’s harsher punishments strip the accused of their rights. These injustices are made all the more pernicious since they affect Black defendants and other persons of color the hardest. Restructuring the police entails limiting their ability to cause harm to the populations they are supposed to be defending. A good place to start is by getting rid of the higher penalty for assaulting law enforcement officials.

What does battery mean in the legal system?

1.This is a physical act that, without the other person’s agreement, causes hurtful or offensive touch with them.

2.In tort law, the deliberate infliction of offensive or injurious touch onto someone without that person’s agreement.

Assault and Battery

“Assault” is typically used in conjunction with “battery” in a physical act of violence committed by one person against another. Battery is the conduct that actually results in physical harm, while assault refers to the act that makes the victim anticipate impending physical harm.

Aggravated Battery

Battery that has an aggravating situation is referred to as aggravated battery. Aggravated battery often carries a greater liability and sentence than simple battery.

Prima Facie Case

Four elements make up the battery’s initial defense:

  • The accused does
  • The offender wants to get in touch with the victim.
  • Contact between the defendant and the victim is hurtful or disrespectful.
  • The victim has harmful or offensive contact as a result of the defendant’s contact.

Is assaulting a law enforcement officer illegal in Kansas?

Battery on a law enforcement official, under section 21-3413. (a) Battery on a law enforcement official is defined as:

(1) Battery, as defined in K.S.A. 21-3412 and its amendments, committed against: (A) A uniformed or properly identified university or campus police officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer’s duty; or (B) A uniformed or properly identified state, county, or city law enforcement officer, other than a state correctional officer or employee, a city or county correctional officer or employee, a juvenile correctional fac

(2) battery, as defined in K.S.A. 21-3412 subsection (a)(1), and amendments thereto, committed against: (A) a uniformed or properly identified university or campus police officer while such officer is engaged in the performance of such officer’s duty; or (B) a uniformed or properly identified state, county, or city law enforcement officer, other than a state correctional officer or employee, a city or county correctional officer or employee, a juvenile correctional fac

(3) battery, as defined in K.S.A. 21-3412 and its amendments, perpetrated against: (A) A state correctional officer or employee by a person held in the custody of the secretary of prisons, while such officer or employee is engaged in the execution of such officer’s or employee’s duties;

(B) committed by a person housed in a juvenile detention facility against an officer or employee of that facility while that officer or employee was performing their duties;

(C) committed by a person housed in a juvenile detention facility against an officer or employee of that facility while that officer or employee is exercising their duties; or

(D) committed by a person detained in a city holding facility or a county jail facility against a city or county correctional officer or employee while that officer or employee was performing their duty.

(b) Battery against a law enforcement official is a class A person misdemeanor as specified in paragraph (a)(1). A severity level 7 person felony is battery against a law enforcement official as specified in subsection (a)(2). A level 5 person felony is battery against a law enforcement official as defined in subsection (a)(3).

(c) Throughout this section:

(1) Any institution or facility under the direction and control of the secretary of corrections is referred to as a “correctional institution.”

(2) Any officer or employee of the Kansas Department of Corrections, an independent contractor, or an employee of such a contractor who works at a correctional facility is referred to as a “State correctional officer or employee.”

(3) Any officer or employee of the juvenile justice authority, an independent contractor, or an employee of such a contractor who works at a juvenile correctional facility as defined in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2302, and amendments thereto, is referred to as a “juvenile correctional facility officer or employee.”

(4) A “Juvenile Detention Facility Officer or Employee” is a person who works for a juvenile detention facility as defined by K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2302 and its revisions.

(5) “City or county correctional officer or employee” refers to any correctional officer or employee of the city or county as well as any independent contractors or their employees who work at city holding facilities or county jail facilities.