Restore Constitutional Accountability to Missouri's Fleeing Statute, because no statute should require a citizen to surrender constitutional protections simply because a law enforcement officer may be acting outside the law.

 If you believe constitutional accountability and public safety can—and should—exist together, please sign this petition and encourage the Missouri General Assembly to carefully consider the attached proposal.

The Constitution does not disappear when emergency lights come on, it was written for the moments when government exercises its greatest power.

It establishes not only the authority of government, but the limits upon that authority. Every Missouri law enforcement officer, prosecutor, judge, legislator, and public official swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Missouri.

That oath is the foundation of public trust and upholding that oath reminds us no one is above the law—not the citizen, and not a government employee. 

Missouri has a compelling interest in effective law enforcement. Police officers perform difficult and dangerous service every day, and they deserve laws that allow them to protect the public safely and effectively.

Citizens deserve something equally important: the full protection of the constitutional rights those officers have sworn to uphold as they serve us in their public duties. These principles are not in conflict, they depend upon one another.

When emergency lights come on, both the officer and the citizen begin making decisions. The citizen is expected to obey lawful commands. The officer is expected to obey the Constitution, Missouri law, departmental policy, and the professional standards designed to protect both public safety and individual liberties. Those various standards and statutory elements exist because every encounter has potential to escalate. 

Modern policing emphasizes objectively reasonable force, de-escalation whenever possible, continual reassessment of force, and, importantly, careful consideration of whether immediate apprehension outweighs the danger created by continued escalation or pursuit. Those standards were not created to protect criminals, they were created because unnecessary escalation places officers, suspects, passengers, and innocent members of the public at greater risk and public safety is strongest when accountability exists on both sides.

Missouri law currently states:

"It is no defense ... that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest."

While civil lawsuits may still be available later, this language prevents the alleged unlawfulness of the officer's conduct from serving as a defense to the criminal charge arising from unlawful acts and creates situations where the citizens of Missouri must suffer unlawful governmental conduct as it happens, or be charged with a felony that will change your life, and you can not have the conduct that was unlawful, abusive, painful, or in any other way unlawful, as any sort of relevance weighted against proving a person intentionally committed a crime. 

That raises some important questions, one being: Should Missouri law categorically prevent a judge or jury from considering whether objectively unlawful governmental conduct is relevant to a defendant's asserted defense? I want to be clear, this petition does not ask Missouri to create a right to flee police. It does not excuse violence. It does not prevent lawful arrests. It does not weaken law enforcement. It simply asks Missouri to recognize a constitutional principle and reinforce that our Government remains accountable to the Constitution while enforcing the law and serving the people. 

It is important to add, human beings do not all respond to fear the same way. Modern medicine recognizes that trauma, PTSD, panic disorders, autism, prior victimization, and other conditions can significantly affect how people perceive rapidly unfolding events. In law, intent matters, context matters, and facts matter. Justice requires that judges and juries be permitted to consider the complete circumstances and in the search for what a person's intent may have been—including objective evidence regarding the conduct of both the citizen and the government—when the law allows a defendant to raise a defense based on those facts.

So, this petition proposes a narrowly tailored amendment creating an affirmative defense only in limited circumstances where a defendant presents evidence that:

• the officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority, or outside the policies designed to protect both the public and officers;

• the defendant reasonably perceived an imminent risk of unlawful harm based on the totality of the circumstances;

• the defendant did not use or threaten violence against law enforcement; and

• all objective evidence remains available for judicial review.

This proposal would doesn't excuse criminal conduct, it simply allows courts to evaluate all relevant evidence instead of requiring one aspect of the encounter to be treated as legally irrelevant. The rule of law is strongest when accountability flows in both directions. That principle protects citizens and our government, but the current law is taking that protection away and creating the opposite, forcing a person to be less protected in this country than its employees who sworn oaths to protect both the United States and Missouri Constitutions, and protect our rights and liberties. This proposal preserves the constitutional liberties that belong equally to every Missourian. 

If you believe constitutional accountability and public safety can—and should—exist together, please sign this petition and encourage the Missouri General Assembly to carefully consider this proposal.

In the opening I mentioned the Constitution does not disappear when emergency lights come on, and neither should the protections it guarantees and preserves. 

 

THE RECIPROCAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Citizens are accountable to the law. Government is accountable to the Constitution.

Proposed Amendments to Missouri Revised Statutes §§ 575.150 & 575.151

Restoring Constitutional Balance While Protecting Public Safety

Executive Summary:

This is a proposal that is balanced, principled, and rooted in the reciprocal obligations that define a constitutional republic.

Missouri's resisting arrest and aggravated fleeing statutes serve an important public purpose by protecting law enforcement officers and discouraging dangerous attempts to evade lawful detention. This proposal fully supports those objectives.
However, both statutes currently contain language providing that:
"It is no defense . . . that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest."
Although civil remedies may remain available after the fact, this language prevents the alleged unlawfulness of governmental conduct from serving as a defense to the criminal prosecution.
This proposal respectfully asks the Missouri General Assembly to reconsider whether that categorical prohibition remains consistent with constitutional principles of due process, the right to present a complete defense, and the trust of We the People in our system of government and in the rule of law.

Constitutional Principles

The Constitution exists for one purpose above all others: to ensure that governmental power always remains accountable to law.
Every Missouri public official swears an oath to uphold both the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. That oath carries reciprocal obligations. Citizens must obey lawful authority. Government must exercise lawful authority. Neither obligation exists without the other.

The Problem

Current Missouri law creates an all-or-nothing rule. Once a prosecution begins under § 575.150 or § 575.151, the statutes declare that unlawful police conduct cannot serve as a defense.
The question is not whether officers should be protected. They should. The question is whether the law should prohibit a jury from considering objectively unlawful governmental conduct when determining criminal responsibility. Justice has always depended upon considering the entire encounter — not only one participant's actions.

Modern Law Enforcement Already Recognizes Individualized Judgments
Police officers are not trained to follow rigid formulas. They are trained to evaluate circumstances. Every day, officers are expected to consider:
• the seriousness of the offense
• proportionality
• objectively reasonable force
• de-escalation
• applicable pursuit policies
• changing circumstances
• risks to innocent bystanders
• constitutional limitations
Modern policing rejects one-size-fits-all decision-making, and Missouri law should do the same.

Human Behavior Is Not Uniform

Scientific understanding has advanced dramatically. Trauma. PTSD. Autism. Panic disorders. Prior victimization. Acute stress. All affect human decision-making differently.
Recognizing these realities does not excuse criminal behavior. It recognizes that justice requires individualized examination — not categorical assumptions. Intent matters. Context matters. Facts matter.

Public Safety and Constitutional Accountability Are Partners

This proposal is not anti-law enforcement. It creates no right to flee. It excuses no violence. It protects no assault upon officers.
Instead, it reinforces something every honorable officer already believes: government should remain accountable to the Constitution while enforcing the law. That principle protects everyone, including police officers.

Proposed Legislative Standard

This proposal recommends a two-step framework that mirrors how Missouri courts already resolve questions of constitutional legality, keeping legal questions with judges and factual questions with juries.
Step One — a threshold legal determination by the court. Whether a law enforcement officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority is a question of law, raised by pretrial motion and decided by the court under the same standards Missouri courts already apply to motions to suppress. This does not ask juries to decide constitutional questions; it asks judges to keep doing what they already do.
Step Two — a narrow factual defense for the jury. Only if the court finds that the officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority may the defendant then present to the jury an affirmative defense that, based on specific and articulable facts:
1. The defendant reasonably perceived imminent unlawful harm at the time of the alleged offense;
2. The defendant's actions were directed toward reaching safety rather than permanently avoiding lawful judicial process;
3. The defendant remained reasonably identifiable; and
4. The defendant neither used nor threatened deadly force.

As with every affirmative defense under Missouri law, the defendant would bear the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not, consistent with § 556.056, RSMo. This is not a lowered or novel standard — it is the same burden Missouri defendants already carry for every other affirmative defense in the criminal code.
Replacing a vague "totality of the circumstances" inquiry with a "specific and articulable facts" standard — the same phrase Missouri and federal courts already use to justify an officer's stop under Terry v. Ohio — ensures the defense cannot rest on a defendant's unsupported claim of fear. It requires the same level of concrete, fact-based justification the law already demands of officers.

Why This Matters

The Constitution protects ordinary citizens. It protects honorable officers. It protects courts. It protects public confidence. And, most importantly, it protects the rule of law. No statute should require citizens to abandon constitutional protections merely because a government official may be acting outside constitutional authority and unlawfully. Public trust grows when accountability exists on both sides.

Request to the Missouri General Assembly

We respectfully request that the Missouri General Assembly amend §§ 575.150 and 575.151 to permit a narrowly tailored affirmative defense allowing courts and juries to consider objective evidence of unlawful governmental conduct under carefully defined circumstances.
Such an amendment would preserve officer safety, preserve public safety, preserve accountability, and preserve the constitutional principles upon which Missouri and the United States were founded. The Constitution does not disappear when emergency lights come on, and neither should the freedoms and protections it guarantees. 

 

Appendix A: Proposed Statutory Text

Struck text below indicates proposed deletions; the affirmative defense framework replaces the current categorical bar. Both sections currently contain functionally identical "no defense" clauses and are proposed for amendment together.

Section 575.150, RSMo — Resisting or Interfering with Arrest
Current subsection 4: 
It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.
Proposed subsection 4: 
(1) Whether the law enforcement officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority in making the arrest is a question of law for the court. The defendant shall raise the issue by pretrial motion, supported by an offer of proof, and the court shall determine the issue under the same standards applicable to a motion to suppress.
(2) If the court determines that the officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority, the defendant may submit to the trier of fact the affirmative defense that, based on specific and articulable facts:
1. The defendant reasonably perceived imminent unlawful harm at the time of the alleged offense;
2. The defendant's actions were directed toward reaching safety rather than permanently avoiding lawful judicial process;
3. The defendant remained reasonably identifiable; and
4. The defendant neither used nor threatened deadly force.
(3) As with any affirmative defense under this chapter, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not, as provided in section 556.056.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.

Section 575.151, RSMo — Valentine's Law (Aggravated Fleeing a Stop or Detention)
Current subsection 4: 
It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 2 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest. A person need not know the basis for the arrest, detention, or stop, only that the person was being stopped or detained.
Proposed subsection 4: 
(1) Whether the law enforcement officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority in making the arrest, stop, or detention is a question of law for the court. The defendant shall raise the issue by pretrial motion, supported by an offer of proof, and the court shall determine the issue under the same standards applicable to a motion to suppress.
(2) If the court determines that the officer acted outside constitutional or statutory authority, the defendant may submit to the trier of fact the affirmative defense that, based on specific and articulable facts:
1. The defendant reasonably perceived imminent unlawful harm at the time of the alleged offense;
2. The defendant's actions were directed toward reaching safety rather than permanently avoiding lawful judicial process;
3. The defendant remained reasonably identifiable; and
4. The defendant neither used nor threatened deadly force.
(3) As with any affirmative defense under this chapter, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not, as provided in section 556.056.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest. A person need not know the basis for the arrest, detention, or stop, only that the person was being stopped or detained

.
Note: the final sentence above, concerning a defendant's knowledge of the basis for a stop, addresses a separate legal question (notice/mens rea) and is not altered by this proposal. 

Appendix B: Legal Authorities
The Right to Present a Complete Defense
• Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) — a state may not apply its evidentiary rules so mechanically that they defeat a defendant's ability to present exculpatory evidence central to the case.
• Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) — struck down a statute categorically barring a class of defense testimony, establishing that the right to present witnesses in one's own defense is fundamental to due process.
• Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) — the source of the controlling standard: the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."
• Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) — reaffirms that this right arises under the Due Process Clause and the Compulsory Process and Confrontation Clauses, and that evidence rules arbitrary or disproportionate to their purpose cannot override it.
The "Specific and Articulable Facts" Standard
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — establishes that an officer may not act on an inchoate hunch, but must point to specific and articulable facts. This proposal holds a defendant asserting the affirmative defense to that same concrete, fact-based standard, rather than a bare subjective claim of fear.
Due Process and Irrebuttable Presumptions
• Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973) — the Due Process Clause forbids a state from foreclosing, by irrebuttable legislative presumption, a factual question that is not universally true where individualized proof is possible. Sections 575.150(4) and 575.151(4) function the same way, declaring officer conduct categorically irrelevant as a matter of law.
Missouri Constitutional Authority
• Mo. Const. art. I, § 18(a) — guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution "the right to appear and defend," the state-law counterpart to the federal right to present a defense.
• Mo. Const. art. I, § 10 — guarantees due process of law under the Missouri Constitution.
• Mo. Const. art. I, § 15 — protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, relevant to the underlying lawfulness of the stop, arrest, or detention at issue.
Federal Constitutional Grounding
• U.S. Const. amend. IV — protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, bearing directly on whether the underlying stop or arrest was lawful.
• U.S. Const. amend. V and XIV — Due Process Clauses, the foundation of the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the state's accusations.
• U.S. Const. amend. VI — Compulsory Process and Confrontation Clauses, which the U.S. Supreme Court has held to overlap with and reinforce the due process right to present a defense.