Understanding Battery of a Police Officer in Louisiana (La. R.S. 14:34.2)
Louisiana takes assaults on law‑enforcement personnel seriously. The Legislature created a separate crime – battery of a police officer – with penalties that are harsher than ordinary battery. This webpage explains the statute, the elements the State must prove for a conviction, potential defenses, and relevant case law. It also answers common questions in plain language and provides the full statutory text. My goal in writing this is to give you, whether you’re a lawyer or a layperson facing a charge, the insight needed to understand your situation and the options available to you. At The Ambeau Law Firm, we take pride in explaining the law clearly and fighting for our clients.
Overview of La. R.S. 14:34.2
Battery of a police officer is defined as a battery committed without the victim’s consent when the offender reasonably believes the victim is a police officer performing official duties. It covers not only traditional physical contact but also throws of liquids or bodily fluids; the statute specifically lists water, urine, blood, saliva or any human waste. The law spells out who counts as a “police officer,” including commissioned law‑enforcement officers, sheriffs and deputies, marshals, correctional officers, juvenile detention officers, probation and parole officers, federal law‑enforcement agents, wildlife agents and state park wardens. Throwing a cup of water at a jailer, for example, can trigger this statute because the legislature wanted to deter any force or violence against peace officers.
The penalties vary based on the circumstances:
- First offense – Up to a $500 fine and 15 days to 6 months in jail without a suspended sentence.
- Second or subsequent offense – Up to a $1 000 fine and 1 to 3 years imprisonment, at least 15 days of which must be served without parole, probation or suspension.
- Offender already in custody – If the offender is under the legal custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or is in a jail or detention facility, the penalty is up to a $1 000 fine and 1 to 5 years’ imprisonment without parole, probation or suspension. This sentence runs consecutively to any other sentence.
- Battery causing injury requiring medical attention – A fine up to $1 000 and imprisonment for 1 to 5 years, with at least 30 days served without parole. A second or subsequent offense involving injury carries up to a $2 000 fine and 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment with at least 60 days without parole.
Importantly, the statute states that the definition of “police officer” applies solely for this section and does not expand arrest powers for agencies not otherwise authorized[9]. That means wildlife agents and state park wardens are covered as victims but do not gain any extra arrest authority under this law.
Elements Required for Conviction
In order to gain a conviction for battery of an officer, three main elements must be established by the prosecution. It was observed by the court in State v. Bowie that “battery of a police officer has three elements: (1) the intentional application of force or violence to a police officer, (2) without the consent of the officer, (3) when the perpetrator knows or should have reasonably known that the victim is a police officer performing the execution of his duty”[10].
1. Intentional use of force or violence. The State must show that the defendant intentionally used force or violence. Louisiana law defines battery as the intentional use of force upon another. Battery of a police officer is a general intent crime, meaning the intent is inferred from the voluntary commission of the act itself; no specific intent to harm is required. In State v. Mayeux, the court explained that the criminal intent necessary for general intent crimes is shown by the very doing of the acts that the law forbids. Simply striking or pushing an officer, or throwing liquid or bodily fluids, satisfies this element.
2. Lack of consent. The officer must not have consented to the contact. This element is usually straightforward—officers rarely consent to being struck or spit on while performing their duties. However, it becomes important where physical contact occurs during lawful arrest procedures; if the contact is incidental and not deliberate, a jury may find that the officer implicitly allowed some physical contact.
3. Knowledge the victim is a police officer performing duty. The defendant must know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the victim is a police officer acting within the scope of duty. Evidence such as uniforms, badges, marked vehicles, verbal identification or presence at a police station often satisfies this element. In State v. Howard, the court overturned a conviction where the defendant, who was intoxicated, did not even acknowledge the officers’ presence; the court held the evidence did not show he knew he was striking a commissioned officer. If the defendant genuinely does not know the person is an officer—perhaps due to plain‑clothes operations or chaotic circumstances—this element may not be met.
Additional element for inmates. When the offense occurs while the offender is in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or detained in any jail, the State must also prove the custody status to trigger the enhanced penalty in subsection (B)(2). In State v. Mayeux, for example, the appellate court noted that the State had to prove the defendant was under jurisdiction and legal custody of the Department when the battery occurred.
Injury requiring medical attention. If the battery causes an injury requiring medical attention, the penalty increases. The Louisiana Supreme Court clarified that “injury requiring medical attention” means an injury necessitating that the officer seek care from doctors, nurses or other medical services, including hospital visits or institutional care. Merely seeking medical attention is not sufficient; the treatment must be medically necessary. A scratch or bruise that does not require professional care will not elevate the offense to the felony version.
Reasonable Defenses
Battery of a police officer is a vague charge and there are defenses that may apply, depending on the specific facts. An experienced defense lawyer will look at whether the state can establish all of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt and if there are any constitutional or statutory grounds for protection.
Lack of Intent or Accidental Contact
This is because battery on an officer is a specific intent crime, if there’s no contact or it occurs accidentally the law’s requirements are not met. If the defendant’s actions were merely autonomic or in response to an involuntary reaction — say, reflexively recoiling from pepper spray or falling into an officer while experiencing a medical problem — then the jury could also have decided that there was no intentional force. The general intent requirement means the State must show the defendant voluntarily engaged in the conduct. Evidence such as body‑camera footage or witness testimony that the contact was incidental can support this defense.
Lack of Knowledge of Officer Status
The defendant must know or reasonably believe the victim is a police officer performing duty. This requirement prevents convictions for confrontations with private security guards or off‑duty officers out of uniform. If the alleged victim was not wearing identifiable clothing, did not announce their status, or was acting outside their official duties, the jury could find the knowledge element lacking. For example, striking a person in plain clothes who suddenly grabs you in a dark parking lot may not be a battery of a police officer if you reasonably thought you were defending yourself against a civilian.
Mistaken Identity or Self‑Defense
Louisiana law recognizes a limited right to resist an illegal arrest; however, courts have consistently held that there is no right to commit battery on police officers during a stop or frisk. In State v. Sims, the Supreme Court held that even if officers lacked reasonable suspicion to frisk a suspect, the defendant’s battery on them was unjustified; there is no right to resist an unlawful stop‑and‑frisk under the long‑standing rule that citizens may not resist unlawful arrests. Similarly, in State v. Antoine, the court held that a driver stopped for a seat‑belt violation could not resist arrest or commit battery on an officer even though the stop was later found to be improper. In rare circumstances where officers use excessive force beyond what is necessary to restrain a person, self‑defense may apply; however, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger and used proportionate force. Simply objecting to handcuffs or striking an officer who is performing a lawful arrest will not qualify.
Lack of Proof of Custody (Subsection B(2))
Against the elevated penalty under Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:52.1, when the offender is actually in Department of Public Safety and Corrections’ custody, the State has to prove as a fact that defendant was actually in such custody at time of commission of crime. If the prosecutor is unable to prove that the defendant was an inmate or detainee at this time, then the extended sentence may not apply. In State v. Mayeux, the court reversed and remanded a case where the record was unambiguous as to credit for time served; however, it was not clear from the record if that credit had not yet been allowed by sentencing and therefore the state had to explain defendant’s custody status.
Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to battery of a police officer because it is a general intent crime. However, intoxication may be relevant to the element of knowledge—whether the defendant knew the victim was a police officer. In State v. Howard, the court concluded the defendant’s drunkenness prevented him from recognizing the officers; because he did not intentionally strike a known officer, the evidence was insufficient. Each case is fact‑specific, and the defense must present evidence showing intoxication precluded the knowledge element.
Double Jeopardy and Lesser‑Included Offenses
In State v. Gardner, the court had ruled that the double jeopardy principles had been violated by convictions for both simple battery and felony battery of a police officer based upon the same act. The solution is to uphold the conviction with the greater sentence and reverse the less serious offense. If the evidence is only sufficient for simple battery or some other lesser‑included offense, the defendant cannot be convicted of both.
Case Law Highlights
State v. Gage (2013) – The Second Circuit reiterated that battery of a police officer requires proof of three elements: intentional force, lack of consent, and knowledge that the victim is a police officer performing his duty. The court affirmed the conviction because the defendant struck a uniformed deputy while being escorted, satisfying all elements. The decision also underscores that battery of a police officer is a general intent crime.
State v. Ceaser (2003) – The Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized the same three elements and clarified that when those elements are satisfied, a defendant can be convicted even if the underlying arrest was later deemed unlawful. The court reaffirmed that a citizen may not resort to battery to resist an arrest.
State v. Boyd (1998) – The court interpreted the phrase “injury requiring medical attention” to mean injuries necessitating professional medical care. Merely seeking medical attention is not enough; the injury must be serious enough to require treatment by doctors, nurses or other medical services. This case guides prosecutors and defense counsel in assessing whether an alleged injury elevates the offense to a felony.
State v. Sims (2003) – The Supreme Court held that there is no right to resist an unlawful stop‑and‑frisk and that battery of a police officer is not justified by a lack of probable cause for the search. This decision limits the availability of self‑defense and underscores the importance of challenging unlawful searches through legal motions rather than physical resistance.
State v. Antoine (1998) – A driver who was improperly stopped for a seat‑belt violation struck the officer. The court held he was not entitled to resist arrest or commit battery, reinforcing that even questionable stops do not justify violence. The proper remedy for illegal stops is suppression of evidence or civil suits—not battery.
State v. Mayeux (2013) – The court affirmed the conviction of an inmate who struck a corrections officer. It reiterated that the State must prove the defendant was under Department of Corrections custody to impose the enhanced penalty. The case also confirms that battery of a police officer is a general intent crime.
These cases illustrate how courts interpret the statute and how defenses are evaluated. They show that the law focuses on protecting officers in the performance of duty while balancing defendants’ rights.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What constitutes battery of a police officer in Louisiana?
Battery of a police officer occurs when someone intentionally uses force or violence against a police officer without the officer’s consent and knows or has reason to know the victim is a police officer performing official duties. “Force or violence” includes spitting, throwing liquids or bodily fluids, or any physical contact. The officer must be on duty or acting within the scope of duty. Consent rarely applies because officers do not consent to being struck or spit upon in the performance of their duties.
What are the penalties for battery of a police officer?
A first‑time offender faces up to a $500 fine and 15 days to 6 months in jail without a suspended sentence. A second or subsequent offense increases the penalty to up to a $1 000 fine and 1–3 years in prison, with at least 15 days served without parole. If the offender is already in custody—for example, an inmate striking a corrections officer—the penalty rises to up to a $1 000 fine and 1–5 years imprisonment without parole. When the battery causes an injury requiring medical attention, the offender can receive 1–5 years in prison (minimum 30 days without parole), and subsequent offenses involving injury carry 2–5 years (minimum 60 days without parole).
Can I claim self‑defense if I was mistreated by the officer?
Self‑defense in battery of a police officer cases is limited. Courts recognize a narrow right to resist an unlawful arrest, but they have held that there is no right to resist an unlawful stop‑and‑frisk or to use force against officers when challenging an arrest. If an officer uses excessive force beyond what is necessary to restrain a person, a defendant may argue self‑defense, but they must show that the force used was reasonable and proportionate. The safer approach is to comply and challenge the arrest or search through legal channels later.
What does “injury requiring medical attention” mean?
This phrase refers to injuries serious enough that the officer must seek professional medical care. In State v. Boyd, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the injury must necessitate treatment by doctors, nurses or other medical services; merely deciding to see a doctor does not make treatment medically necessary. Minor scratches or bruises that do not require medical intervention will not elevate the offense to the injury‑based felony under subsection (B)(3).
What if I didn’t know the person I hit was a police officer?
Knowledge is a required element of the offense. The law requires that you knew or should reasonably have known that the victim was a police officer acting in their duties. Uniforms, badges, identification, marked vehicles or verbal announcements usually make the status obvious. However, if the officer was in plain clothes, did not identify themselves, or you were unable to recognize them (for example, due to intoxication), the knowledge element may not be satisfied. Evidence like body‑camera footage, witness testimony and your own statements can support this defense.
Can I be charged with both battery of a police officer and simple battery?
Generally, no. In State v. Gardner, the court held that convicting a defendant of both felony battery of a police officer and simple battery for the same act violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. When two offenses are based on the same conduct and one is a lesser‑included offense, the remedy is to vacate the lesser conviction. Prosecutors may charge alternative counts, but only one conviction for the conduct will stand.
Full Text of La. R.S. 14:34.2 (Battery of a Police Officer)
§ 34.2. Battery of a police officer
A. (1) Battery on a cop is battery of a victim made without the consent of such victim if such perpetrator knows or has reason to know that the victim against he or she commits the offense is a police officer engaged in his duty.
(2) “Police officer” includes commissioned police officers, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, marshals, deputy marshals, correctional officers, juvenile detention facility officers, federal law enforcement officers, constables, wildlife enforcement agents, state park wardens, and probation and parole officers.
(3) “Battery of a police officer” includes using force or violence by throwing water or any other liquid, feces, urine, blood, saliva or any human waste upon the officer.
B. (1)(a) Whoever is convicted of the crime of battery of a police officer shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not less than fifteen days nor more than six months without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence..
(b) Upon a second or subsequent conviction, such person shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than one year nor more than three years , at least fifteen days to be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
(2) If the offender is under the jurisdiction and legal custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections or detained in any jail, prison, correctional facility, juvenile institution, temporary holding center, halfway house, or detention facility, the offender shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than one year nor more than five years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence; the sentence shall be consecutive to any other state sentence.
(3)(a) And if the battery results in an injury for which cruel and unusual punishment may be inflicted upon the offender, he shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than one year nor more than five years, or both such fine and imprisonment; at least thirty days of said sentence shall be imposed without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence..
(b) If the battery results in an injury requiring medical attention and is a second or sub sequent offense as defined by this Section, the offender shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and imprisoned at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than five years; not less than sixty days of the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
C. The definition of a “police officer” in Paragraph (A)(2) is strictly construed solely for this Section and does not grant any new arrest or law‑enforcement authority to agencies not defined as peace officers under R.S. 40:2402.
How The Ambeau Law Firm Can Help
Facing a battery of a police officer charge is daunting. The stakes are high: even a first offense carries mandatory jail time, and subsequent offenses or injuries expose you to years of imprisonment. As a Louisiana criminal defense attorney with years of experience in violent crimes, I know how to scrutinize every element of the State’s case. At The Ambeau Law Firm, we meticulously review body‑camera footage, police reports and witness statements to determine whether the State can prove intentional force, lack of consent, knowledge of officer status and any custody requirements. We investigate the circumstances of the arrest to identify constitutional violations and suppression issues, such as illegal stops or excessive force, which can undermine the prosecution’s case. If an injury is alleged, we examine medical records to challenge whether it truly required professional attention under the Boyd standard. We also counsel clients on possible plea negotiations and sentencing mitigation.
We are a law office that is committed to providing supportive and caring representation. This is our one truth: We do not believe that being charged with battery of a police officer makes you a bad person. You are entitled to a fair hearing and robust defense. If you or a loved one is being accused of these charges, we urge you to contact us. We’re here to listen, assess your case and fight, for the best possible result.