Background
In January 2020, police responded to remove defendant Emmanuel Canteberry from his girlfriend Keyanna Williams’ home in Sauk Village. Canteberry left willingly and Williams drove him to his mother’s house while officers followed. Upon arrival, Canteberry took Williams’ car keys (which included his mother’s house key) from the ignition. When officers asked him to return the keys, he refused and continued trying to enter his mother’s house.
Officers attempted to arrest Canteberry for theft. During the arrest, Canteberry resisted and tried to climb a fence to escape. Officer Langan drive-stunned Canteberry twice with a Taser (pressing the device against his skin rather than firing probes). After the second drive-stun, Canteberry grabbed Officer Langan’s vest and pulled him to the ground, causing minor scrapes and scratches. Canteberry was charged with three counts of aggravated battery and one count of resisting a peace officer. The bench trial occurred in May 2023, nearly three years after the incident.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed all convictions. On the aggravated battery charge, the court rejected Canteberry’s argument that pulling the officer to the ground was an involuntary reflex from being drive-stunned. The court distinguished between drive-stunning (applying electrodes to the skin for “pain compliance”) and tasering with probes, which can involuntarily override the central nervous system. Here, drive-stunning does not cause involuntary movement. The court found Canteberry’s conduct was entirely voluntary based on his resistance both before and after the stun, his verbal commands to stop the stun, his attempt to escape by climbing a fence, and his failure to mention involuntary movements in his own testimony. Pulling a 200-pound officer to the ground constituted objectively insulting or provoking physical contact required for battery.
On the resisting arrest charge, the court held that even if the arrest lacked probable cause (which it did not), a defendant cannot forcibly resist arrest by a peace officer. Illinois law provides that a person may not use force to resist an arrest even if the arrest is unlawful or the defendant believes it to be unlawful. The arrest here was lawful because the officers had probable cause: Canteberry took Williams’ keys, refused to return them when confronted, and attempted to escape. Regarding a Brady claim based on the State’s failure to disclose that Officer Langan had shot an unarmed juvenile suspect in an unrelated March 2022 incident, the court found no material violation. The evidence would likely have been inadmissible to impeach Langan since he was neither disciplined nor charged for the shooting. Moreover, even if admissible, it would not have changed the outcome given Langan’s testimony was corroborated by Officer Morris and physical evidence, while Canteberry’s defense version was internally inconsistent.
Key Takeaways
- Drive-stunning differs from tasering with probes and does not involuntarily override the central nervous system; it operates through “pain compliance” and does not excuse voluntary resistance.
- A defendant cannot lawfully resist an arrest even if the arrest is unlawful or the defendant believes it to be unlawful; resistance to an arrest by a peace officer always constitutes an “authorized act” for charging purposes.
- Probable cause for arrest is assessed objectively based on facts known to the officer at the time; taking a vehicle’s keys and refusing to return them upon demand provides sufficient probable cause for a theft arrest.
- Brady violations require materiality; evidence of unrelated police misconduct that results in no discipline or criminal charges is likely inadmissible to impeach and insufficient to overturn convictions when corroborating evidence and physical evidence support the conviction.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly restricts defendants’ options when challenging police conduct during arrests. By holding that defendants cannot resist even unlawful arrests, the court prioritizes order and officer safety over allowing individuals to contest arrest legality in real time. The decision also clarifies the distinction between types of Taser deployment, which has implications for excessive force litigation. This is particularly relevant given growing concerns about police use of force, as the court found that drive-stunning—while painful—does not create an involuntary response that would excuse physical resistance.
The Brady analysis demonstrates that prosecutors’ duty to disclose favorable evidence has limits. While prosecutors must learn of evidence known to police, evidence of an officer’s unrelated past misconduct that resulted in no formal discipline may not be admissible or material enough to warrant reversal, even when credibility is central to the case. For defense counsel, this case underscores the importance of establishing formal discipline or charges against officers to make prior misconduct admissible for impeachment, and the difficulty of obtaining reversals on Brady grounds when corroborating evidence exists.