Disarming a law enforcement officer is a felony in every U.S. jurisdiction, and in federal court it can carry up to 20 years in prison when a dangerous weapon is used or someone is injured during the struggle.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 111 – Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees The charge applies whether the person actually takes the weapon or only tries to. Because the danger spikes the moment anyone reaches for a loaded firearm in a public place, prosecutors, judges, and sentencing guidelines treat the offense far more harshly than ordinary assault or theft.
What the Offense Actually Covers
At its core, the crime is removing, or trying to remove, a weapon from an officer’s control. Reaching for a holstered firearm counts. Yanking a baton out of an officer’s grip counts. Pulling a Taser off a duty belt counts. The weapon does not have to leave the officer’s hands. In most jurisdictions the attempt alone supports a conviction.
“Weapon” is read broadly. It includes firearms, electronic control devices like Tasers and stun guns, chemical sprays such as pepper spray, impact tools like expandable batons, and any other instrument the officer is authorized to carry for protection or to subdue suspects. If the object serves a defensive or offensive function on the officer’s person, trying to take it qualifies.
Which Officers the Law Protects
Disarming statutes cover a wide class of law enforcement personnel. At the state and local level that means uniformed police, sheriff’s deputies, state troopers, and correctional officers in jails or prisons. At the federal level, 18 U.S.C. § 1114 protects any officer or employee of the United States, including the uniformed services, while performing official duties.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 1114 – Protection of Officers and Employees of the United States That umbrella reaches FBI agents, DEA investigators, federal marshals, ICE officers, and personnel from dozens of other agencies.
The officer generally must be acting in an official capacity at the time. A uniformed officer on duty clearly qualifies. Plainclothes and undercover officers are harder. The Seventh Circuit noted in Doornbos v. City of Chicago (2017) that it is generally unreasonable for a plainclothes officer to skip identification during a stop, though rare circumstances may justify it. By contrast, the Eleventh Circuit held in Beckman v. Hamilton (2018) that officers in full uniform satisfy the identification requirement through their appearance alone. If you had no reasonable way to know the person was an officer, that fact matters at trial.
What Prosecutors Have to Prove
The physical act is only part of the case. The government must also show the defendant acted knowingly and intentionally. Bumping an officer’s holster during a fall, or reflexively grabbing at anything within reach while being tackled, does not meet the bar. Prosecutors have to establish that the defendant specifically intended to take the weapon or was aware their actions would likely cause the officer to lose control of it.
There is a second knowledge requirement: the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person was a law enforcement officer performing official duties. That element is what distinguishes a disarming charge from standard assault or robbery. If an officer is off-duty, out of uniform, and not engaged in any law enforcement activity, a disarming charge is unlikely to survive. The conduct can still be prosecuted, but as a different and usually lesser offense.
Official duty is defined by what the officer was doing, not just the badge. Making an arrest, serving a warrant, responding to a disturbance, transporting a prisoner, or running a traffic stop all count.
Federal Penalties Under 18 U.S.C. § 111
Federal law has no standalone “disarming an officer” statute. Taking or attempting to take a weapon from a federal officer is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111, which covers forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding the officers and employees named in § 1114. The statute runs in three tiers.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 111 – Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees
- Simple assault with no physical contact: up to 1 year in prison and a fine.
- Physical contact, or intent to commit another felony: up to 8 years and a fine. Most disarming attempts land here at minimum because reaching for a weapon on an officer’s body is physical contact by definition.
- Use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, or infliction of bodily injury: up to 20 years and a fine. If the officer’s own weapon is used against them or anyone is hurt during the struggle, this tier applies.
The federal sentencing guidelines add more weight. Under USSG §2A2.4, obstructing or impeding officers starts at a base offense level of 10, with a 3-level increase when physical contact occurs or a dangerous weapon is involved. If the conduct rises to aggravated assault, the case shifts to §2A2.2, which starts at level 14.3United States Sentencing Commission. Guidelines Manual – Chapter 2 The official victim enhancement under §3A1.2 adds another 6 levels when the defendant knowingly assaults a law enforcement officer during the offense.4United States Sentencing Commission. USSG 3A1.2 – Official Victim Stacked, those enhancements can push the guidelines range well above where a routine assault would sit.
State Penalties
Most states have passed specific statutes criminalizing the disarming of a peace officer, separate from their general assault laws. The offense is universally a felony, though classification and prison exposure vary. Some states set the floor at 2 to 5 years for an attempt with no injury. Others start higher. When injury results or the weapon is discharged, sentences in many jurisdictions reach 10 to 20 years. Fines typically run from several thousand dollars up to $10,000 or more, with mandatory surcharges, victim compensation fees, and restitution often added on.
Several states attach mandatory minimum sentences to the offense. Where a mandatory minimum applies, the judge cannot go below that prison term, and the defendant must serve it in full before becoming eligible for parole or early release. That is one of the sharpest differences between disarming charges and general assault: the legislature decided the conduct was too dangerous to leave to judicial discretion.
What Makes a Case Worse
Aggravating circumstances can push an already serious felony into the highest sentencing tiers. The most consequential is whether the weapon discharged during the struggle. Even an accidental discharge dramatically increases the danger, and courts treat it that way. When a firearm goes off during a disarming attempt in a public place, prosecutors almost always seek the maximum.
Other factors that drive sentences up:
- Injury to the officer or bystanders. Broken bones, lacerations, or any injury needing medical treatment can elevate the charge or trigger enhanced sentencing provisions.
- Using the weapon against the officer. Turning an officer’s own firearm on them, or threatening others with it, moves the case closer to attempted murder in many courts.
- Prior criminal history. Previous violent felonies raise the guidelines range and can trigger habitual offender statutes.
- Being on bail, probation, or supervised release at the time of the incident.
Pretrial release is also harder in these cases. Disarming an officer is a crime of violence, which under the federal Bail Reform Act allows the government to request a detention hearing, and permits a judge to order pretrial detention when no conditions can reasonably ensure community safety and the defendant’s appearance.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 3142 – Release or Detention of a Defendant Pending Trial Many defendants charged with this offense spend the entire pretrial period in custody.
Defenses That Can Work
The strongest defense in many cases attacks intent. If the physical contact was genuinely accidental or reflexive, there was no knowing attempt to take the weapon. Arrests often involve grabbing, pushing, and struggling in ways that make it hard to isolate a deliberate reach from incidental contact. Defense attorneys argue that what the prosecution frames as a purposeful grab was really an instinctive reaction during a violent takedown. Body camera footage and witness testimony often decide this question.
Lack of knowledge that the person was an officer is another viable defense, especially in plainclothes encounters. If the officer was out of uniform and did not identify themselves before initiating physical contact, the defendant may not have known they were struggling with law enforcement at all. Courts evaluate this on the specific facts, including whether the officer displayed a badge, announced authority, or wore anything identifying.
Self-defense against excessive force is the most contested area and the hardest to win. Most states significantly restrict or outright prohibit the use of force against a police officer, even one acting unreasonably. The usual legal position is that the remedy for excessive force is a courtroom, not a struggle on the street. Narrow exceptions exist when an officer’s force is so extreme that a reasonable person would fear for their life, but juries tend to credit officers, and judges instruct jurors to evaluate the officer’s conduct from the officer’s perspective. Anyone relying on this defense faces a steep uphill battle.
What a Conviction Costs Beyond Prison
A felony conviction for disarming an officer carries consequences that outlast the sentence. Federal law bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing any firearm or ammunition.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 922 – Unlawful Acts That is a lifetime prohibition unless the conviction is expunged or civil rights are formally restored under state law.7U.S. Department of Justice. Criminal Resource Manual 1435 – Post-Conviction Restoration of Civil Rights Violating that ban is a separate federal felony.
Voting rights depend on state law. Some states restore them automatically upon release. Others require completion of parole and probation. A few impose permanent disenfranchisement for certain offenses.
Employment consequences are often the most practically damaging. Many states bar people with violent felony convictions from public employment. Professional licensing boards in healthcare, law, education, and financial services routinely deny or revoke licenses based on felony convictions. Federal law also restricts felons from working at certain agencies, including the FDIC. Anyone with or needing a federal security clearance faces near-certain revocation or denial, which effectively closes off defense, intelligence, and government contractor work.
Housing narrows too. Federal law allows public housing authorities to deny admission based on criminal history, and private landlords in most states can legally screen for felony convictions. The combined pressure of employment and housing barriers makes reintegration after this type of conviction considerably harder than after lower-level offenses.