SJC Clarifies Resisting Arrest Law in Juvenile Case: What Commonwealth v. Manolo M. Means for Defendants and Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts
On July 8, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a major ruling in Commonwealth v. Manolo M. and two companion juvenile cases. The decision clarifies the elements of the Massachusetts resisting arrest statute—G.L. c. 268, § 32B—and affirms the delinquency adjudications of three Brockton teens who were arrested during a chaotic post-dismissal scene outside Brockton High School in October 2019.
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, our team of Boston criminal and juvenile defense attorneys believes this case offers critical insights into the constitutional limits of police authority, how courts interpret "resisting arrest," and what defenses are still viable when minors are swept up in police responses to public unrest.
Here’s what defense attorneys—and the public—need to know about this important decision.
The Incident: Brockton High and the Florence Street Crowd
On October 3, 2019, Brockton High School dismissed more than 4,000 students at 11:00 a.m. Amidst rumors of expected fights, police flooded the area. Officers were soon dispatched to multiple incidents, including an assault on Forest Avenue and reports of a growing disturbance on nearby Florence Street.
There, officers found more than 100 students blocking traffic. Using cruiser lights, sirens, and PA systems, officers attempted to disperse the crowd. But tensions escalated.
Three juveniles—later identified as Frederick F., Angela A., and Manolo M.—interacted with police and were ultimately arrested. Each was charged with resisting arrest under G.L. c. 268, § 32B. Manolo also faced a charge of assault and battery on a police officer.
The SJC reviewed these cases to determine whether:
The arrests were lawful under the “color of official authority” standard;
The teens engaged in conduct that meets the statutory definition of “resisting arrest”;
Their behavior was constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
What Is Resisting Arrest in Massachusetts?
Under G.L. c. 268, § 32B, a person "resists arrest" when they knowingly prevent a police officer from making an arrest by:
Using or threatening physical force or violence, or
Using any other means that creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the officer or others.
Importantly, the statute also defines a necessary condition for guilt: the officer must be “acting under color of official authority”, which requires that the officer:
“...in the regular course of assigned duties, is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made.”
That statutory language played a central role in the SJC’s decision.
Key Issue #1: Did Police Act Under “Color of Official Authority”?
Attorneys for Frederick and Angela argued that police lacked probable cause to arrest them, and therefore the officers could not have been acting in “good faith” as required by the statute.
Frederick’s Case
Frederick stood in the street yelling, “F— you pigs! I ain’t moving s—!” after officers had already tried to disperse the crowd. The defense claimed this was protected speech and insufficient to justify an arrest.
But the Court disagreed. While acknowledging that profane criticism of police is constitutionally protected, the SJC concluded that Frederick’s refusal to move and his influence on a hostile crowd gave the officer a good-faith basis to arrest him—likely for disorderly conduct or other public order offenses.
Takeaway: The First Amendment does not shield conduct that escalates a volatile crowd situation, even if it’s accompanied by speech.
Angela’s Case
Angela was filming an arrest on her phone. Multiple officers testified that she repeatedly placed her phone inches from their faces, screamed at them, and interfered with an arrest in progress.
Her defense emphasized her constitutional right to record the police and accused the officers of overreaction and excessive force. But the SJC found sufficient evidence that the arresting officer, Officer Parrett, made a good-faith judgment that her proximity and behavior hindered an active police duty—potentially violating the law prohibiting interference with an officer.
Takeaway: Filming police is lawful—but only when done from a safe distance without obstructing an arrest or creating risk.
Key Issue #2: Did the Juveniles Engage in Prohibited “Resistance”?
The second major question was whether Angela and Manolo's behavior actually fit the statutory definition of resisting arrest. Each argued the Commonwealth failed to prove they either:
Used/threatened physical force or violence, or
Created a substantial risk of bodily injury.
Angela’s Conduct: “Yanked Away” and Tucked Hands
Angela’s arrest occurred after she refused commands, was taken to the ground, and tucked her hands under her body, preventing handcuffing.
The SJC emphasized Officer Parrett’s testimony that Angela “yanked away” when he first tried to handcuff her—an act the Court found sufficient to constitute physical force under § 32B(a)(1).
While Angela argued that this was self-defense in response to excessive force, the jury was instructed on self-defense and rejected that theory. The SJC deferred to the jury’s role in resolving conflicting testimony.
Takeaway: Even minor resistance—like pulling your arm away—can meet the legal threshold for “resisting arrest” when coupled with defiance and noncompliance.
Manolo’s Conduct: A Close Call
Manolo’s situation was more complex. Before being told he was under arrest, he charged a police officer, took a fighting stance, and tried to punch the officer in the head. The officer responded with a kick, and both fell to the ground.
The SJC rightly found that pre-arrest violence cannot be the basis for a resisting arrest charge. However, once on the ground, officers testified that Manolo failed to comply with commands to put his hands behind his back. The jury could infer—based on the circumstances—that he used physical force to resist.
Takeaway: Even without direct evidence of a punch or kick during the arrest itself, noncompliance and physical resistance can support a conviction under § 32B.
What This Means for Criminal and Juvenile Defense Attorneys
This case should be carefully studied by any Massachusetts defense attorney handling charges under G.L. c. 268, § 32B, especially in volatile crowd-control settings, protest contexts, or juvenile matters.
1. Motion to Dismiss: Still Viable in “Bad Arrest” Cases
The Court held that when the facts show no possible good-faith basis for an arrest, a defendant can win a dismissal under § 32B(b). That’s a rare but valuable tool. It means we can challenge resisting arrest charges at the earliest stage, well before trial.
But the bar is high. In this case, the Court found enough basis—even in a loud and chaotic scene—to infer good faith. Defense lawyers should prepare strong discovery motions to explore the context, officer conduct, and command communications.
2. The First Amendment Is Not a Shield for Conduct
The decision underscores that courts will separate speech from action. A juvenile yelling “F the police” or recording with a phone is likely protected. But when that conduct is coupled with failure to disperse, approaching officers, or interfering in arrests, it can cross the line.
Defense attorneys must highlight how the client’s conduct remained passive, non-obstructive, and non-threatening, even if emotionally charged.
3. The Standard for “Physical Force” Is Low
"Yanking away," "tensing up," or "tucking hands" may be enough. The SJC affirmed that resisting arrest doesn’t require injury or even aggressive violence—just intentional physical resistance. This raises concerns about overcriminalization, especially when minors panic during chaotic arrests.
Lawyers should request jury instructions clarifying this standard, and frame such resistance as natural reactions to sudden, painful, or frightening encounters—especially when the arrest appears unwarranted or excessive.
Conclusion: Resisting Arrest Requires Aggressive Defense Strategy
The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Manolo M. is now the leading case on resisting arrest in Massachusetts. It defines both the legal limits of police authority and the threshold for criminal resistance—especially in juvenile or high-tension contexts.
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we know how to challenge resisting arrest charges in Boston, Brockton, and across the Commonwealth. Whether your case involves:
Allegations of interference during a friend’s arrest,
Charges stemming from protests or police overreach,
First-time juvenile offenses in school or public spaces, or
Use of cell phone video to hold police accountable,
our attorneys are ready to build a strategic, constitutionally-grounded defense.