What specific elements must prosecutors prove to secure a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §111 for impeding federal officers?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Prosecutors seeking a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for “impeding” or related conduct must tie three core threads together: the defendant committed one of the statute’s proscribed acts (forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered), the target was a person covered by the statute (a federal officer or employee as defined in §1114), and the officer was engaged in—or the conduct was because of—the performance of official duties; the government must prove those elements beyond a reasonable doubt [1] [2] [3].
1. The core prosecutorial elements — what acts the statute reaches
The statute lists specific verbs—“forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes”—and convictions require proof that the defendant engaged in one of those acts; many courts read at least some form of assaultive or obstructive conduct into convictions under subsection (a) [1] [4]. Whether the government charges a misdemeanor or felony version turns on the nature of the act (simple assault versus conduct involving physical contact, bodily injury, or use of a deadly weapon) and sometimes on whether there was intent to commit another felony [3] [2].
2. Who counts as a protected person and when they must be performing duties
The protected class is defined by reference to §1114—federal officers and employees—and prosecutors must show the victim fits that statutory description; moreover, the conduct must occur while the officer is engaging in official duties or “on account of” those duties, a causal nexus the government must establish to bring the federal statute into play rather than a state assault charge [1] [2] [5].
3. Mental state: intent, knowledge, and circuit nuances
Section 111 is generally treated as a general‑intent crime: prosecutors need to prove the defendant intentionally committed the proscribed act (for example, intentionally impeded or forcibly resisted), not that the defendant had a specific intent regarding the officer’s status [4] [6]. Courts differ, however, on whether the defendant must know the victim is a federal officer; some precedents (citing Feola) hold lack of knowledge about federal status is irrelevant to wrongfulness, while defenses like self‑defense are available if the defendant denies knowledge and presents evidence supporting justification [4].
4. Penalties and how they shape prosecutorial strategy
The statutory penalties scale with harm: simple assaults may be prosecuted as misdemeanors carrying up to a year, while aggravated scenarios—physical contact, bodily injury, deadlier means or intent to commit another felony—trigger higher felony penalties (up to decades in some cases), which influences charging decisions and plea bargaining in protest or obstruction cases [3] [2] [7]. Prosecutors frequently allege conduct like pushing, bracing against a vehicle, or obstructing agents as bases for enhanced charges, and defense counsel challenge whether the factual predicate meets the higher threshold [7] [8].
5. Areas of legal uncertainty and common defenses prosecutors must overcome
A notable circuit split exists over whether common‑law simple assault is an essential element of every § 111 offense—seven circuits have split on that question—creating litigation over whether non‑assaultive resistance can sustain certain felony convictions, an issue that has reached the Supreme Court docket in recent filings [9]. Defendants commonly raise lack of intent, self‑defense, and insufficient evidence as defenses; prosecutors therefore must carefully prove both the proscribed act and its connection to official duties while anticipating challenges to the mens rea and to whether the conduct qualifies as the kind of assaultive or obstructive behavior that § 111 criminalizes [4] [6].