STATE OF LOUISIANA v. AMANDA SORENSEN (2025)

Defendant, Amanda Sorenson seeks review of her conviction and sentence for resisting an officer (La. R.S. 14:108). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's conviction and sentence are reversed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Relator was originally charged by bill of information on November 13, 2023 with one count of attempted battery of a police officer (La. R.S. 14:34.2 and 14:27) and one count of resisting an officer (La. R.S. 14:108). She pled “not guilty” to both counts. Relator was tried and convicted on both counts on October 9, 2024. Her counsel filed a Motion for New Trial on October 23, 2024 and a Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal on November 20, 2024. On November 20, 2024, the trial court denied the Motion for New Trial, but granted the Motion for Post-Verdict Judgment of Acquittal as to Count 1 (attempted battery of a police officer)¹ only. The trial court then sentenced Relator to six months in parish jail, suspended, on Count 2 (resisting an officer by refusing to provide identification). Defense counsel requested a deferred sentence under Article 894, which was granted, and the trial court then placed Relator on one year of active probation. Relator was also fined $500 and ordered to enroll and participate in substance abuse counseling, at her cost. Relator was given credit for time served.

Relator filed a Motion for Appeal on December 10, 2024, which was granted the following day. The appeal was lodged in this Court under Docket No. 25-KA-134. On April 3, 2025, after the record was lodged, but before appellant had filed her brief, this Court found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, but granted Relator 30 days from April 3, 2025 within which to file a writ application to this Court.² Relator timely filed her writ application on May 2, 2025.

FACTS

On October 29, 2023, Corporal Andre Lee (“Cpl. Lee”) of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office was dispatched to 215 Ormond Meadows Drive in conjunction with the report of a female who was feeling suicidal. Cpl. Lee was the sole officer to respond to the scene. When he arrived, a man, later identified as Jonathan Sorensen, Relator's husband, was standing in the doorway, still on the phone with dispatch. Mr. Sorensen stated to Cpl. Lee that his wife was acting “crazy” or “unusual.” Cpl. Lee smelled alcohol on Mr. Sorensen's breath and believed him to be intoxicated. Mr. Sorensen informed Cpl. Lee that he was a criminology professor at Loyola and that he was “one of you.”

Cpl. Lee testified that when he entered the home, he observed a female, Mr. Sorensen's wife, Amanda, lying on the kitchen floor, crying hysterically. There was a spilled beverage and an empty glass with ice in it on the floor beside her and she was “highly intoxicated.” Cpl. Lee asked Ms. Sorensen what was wrong and she said “nothing”. She stated repeatedly, however, that her husband was “an a**hole,” that “she could not believe he did this to her,” and that he was “aggressive.” Based on Ms. Sorensen's comments, Cpl. Lee suspected that there may have been a domestic violence situation between the parties.

Cpl. Lee asked Ms. Sorensen whether she felt suicidal or whether she felt that she might harm herself, to which she replied that she felt neither. She also denied to Cpl. Lee that any physical violence had occurred between her and Mr. Sorensen and informed Cpl. Lee that she was not considering harming Mr. Sorensen. Cpl. Lee then left her with EMS personnel who had arrived on the scene and went back to speak to Mr. Sorensen.

Mr. Sorensen informed Cpl. Lee that he only told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that his wife was suicidal so that the Sheriff's Office would send someone out to his house. Cpl. Lee testified that some of the comments made by Mr. Sorensen confirmed his belief that there may have been a domestic situation going on. Mr. Sorensen told Cpl. Lee that Ms. Sorensen was jealous of Mr. Sorensen's daughter, that it had been his daughter's birthday that day and that Ms. Sorensen had “gotten a hold of the handle” [of vodka], and was acting crazy and belligerent. Mr. Sorensen indicated to Cpl. Lee that Ms. Sorensen had “acted out” before, but that this time was worse than usual. Mr. Sorensen denied that there had been any physical violence perpetuated by either party towards the other.

Cpl. Lee testified that he went back into the kitchen where Ms. Sorensen was speaking with EMS personnel and observed that Ms. Sorensen was still being belligerent. When he started to question her again, Ms. Sorensen began to cry. Ms. Sorensen asked Cpl. Lee if he was serious and he said yes and asked her to produce identification. At that point, Ms. Sorensen stood up and started walking around looking for her identification. At this same time, Mr. Sorensen was behind Cpl. Lee taunting Ms. Sorensen, laughing at her, and saying she was going to jail. According to Cpl. Lee, both Mr. and Ms. Sorensen were acting like children. Cpl. Lee instructed Mr. Sorensen to leave the room, which he did. After Mr. Sorensen left the room and Cpl. Lee asked Ms. Sorensen to produce identification, Ms. Sorensen opened a kitchen drawer. Cpl. Lee observed the drawer to contain kitchen knives and he immediately stepped forward and closed the drawer and instructed Ms. Sorensen to go sit on the couch.

Ms. Sorensen testified that there were other things in the drawer besides knives and that she and Mr. Sorensen kept their wallets in that drawer. She stated that she was only going into the drawer to retrieve her identification, not to get a knife with which to harm herself or to threaten or harm anyone else. Cpl. Lee testified that due to the emotionally charged situation, he thought Ms. Sorensen might be going into the drawer to get a knife, so he moved to foreclose her ability to do that.

Once Ms. Sorensen was seated on the couch, Cpl. Lee asked her to provide him with her name and birthdate. He testified that Ms. Sorensen's speech was slurred, but she was able to form her words. Ms. Sorensen testified that Cpl. Lee had been making faces at her, was not acting in a manner that she believed was appropriate for police officers, and that she decided at that point that she was not going to cooperate further with his inquiries; so, when Cpl. Lee asked her again to identify herself once she was seated on the sofa, she refused. Cpl. Lee testified that he then informed Ms. Sorensen that if she refused to cooperate, she could be arrested for “resisting an officer by refusing to ID” and asked if she was aware of that. Ms. Sorensen replied, “Yes.” Cpl. Lee then said, “[w]ell, you're under arrest,” to which Ms. Sorensen replied, “[o]kay,” whereupon, Cpl. Lee proceeded to take Ms. Sorensen into custody. Cpl. Lee instructed Ms. Sorensen to stand up, but she refused. He then “went in to initiate the arrest and put her in handcuffs” and she resisted. Cpl. Lee testified that Ms. Sorensen fell to the floor because she was “swinging at [him].” He further testified that once on the floor, Ms. Sorensen continued to resist by kicking at him. Once in handcuffs, Cpl. Lee testified that Ms. Sorensen refused to walk to the police unit and had to be carried by Cpl. Lee and EMS personnel. Once in the unit, Ms. Sorensen continued to resist, trying to bite Cpl. Lee when he was fastening her seat belt. Thereafter, Ms. Sorensen refused to talk to Cpl. Lee. Throughout this encounter, Cpl. Lee was not struck, kicked, bitten or otherwise injured by Ms. Sorensen.

Cpl. Lee testified that Ms. Sorensen continued to resist when they arrived at the Nelson Coleman Correctional Center (the “Correctional Center”). She refused to exit the police unit and refused to walk. She also made racial slurs against the intake personnel at the Correctional Center.

During his encounters with Mr. and Ms. Sorensen, Cpl. Lee's bodycam was in operation. He also had two MVRs on his police unit. The video taken from these cameras was played for the trial court, but none was made a part of the record or attached to the writ application and, accordingly, has not been reviewed by this Court. The contents of the video were, however, the subject of extensive and detailed testimony at trial.

Relator testified that she and her husband had been going through a very stressful period for their family at the time of the incident and her husband had started drinking heavily. She explained that she herself did not drink because she suffers from tick-borne diseases. Relator testified that she had been virtually bedridden for three years prior to the time she and her husband moved to Louisiana in September 2023, when he accepted a job teaching at Loyola.

Because of her health conditions, Relator testified that she had asked her husband to remove all alcohol from the house, but that he thereafter started hiding it. Relator stated that on the evening in question, Mr. Sorensen had been drinking heavily and had “passed out.” Relator did not want him to have any more alcohol when he woke up, so she poured the vodka that was left in the bottle – which she estimated to be about three shots -- into a slushy that was in the freezer and drank it. Relator testified that Mr. Sorensen became irate when he woke up and realized that she had drunk all of the remaining vodka because the store was closed and he would not be able to get more. He began yelling at her and she told him she was going to kill herself and walked outside. Relator claims that she made this threat to get Mr. Sorensen's attention and snap him back to reality because “he was on such a bender, you couldn't have a conversation with him.” Relator explained that she had made such a threat once before when Mr. Sorensen was drunk and it worked to get him to stop drinking in the short-term. She denied, however, that she had ever intended to take her own life.

After Relator walked outside, Mr. Sorensen tried to telephone Relator's father to have him talk to her, but she refused to speak to him. Mr. Sorensen then, unbeknownst to her, called 9-1-1. When Cpl. Lee asked for her identification, she intended to retrieve it from the drawer, but Cpl. Lee slammed the drawer shut and yelled at her to go sit on the couch. Relator said that she told Cpl. Lee that her ID was in the drawer, but he said it was not. She also testified that Cpl. Lee taunted her when she was searching for her husband in the house.

Relator stated that, in the process of arresting her, Cpl. Lee twisted her arm above her head and she was in a great deal of pain. She stated that she was trying to adjust her body to relieve the pain and that it is why it appeared that she swatted at Cpl. Lee. According to Relator, Cpl. Lee threw her to the floor in the process of arresting her. Relator also stated that, at the time, her mobility was limited and she had trouble getting up and walking. Relator did not expressly deny that she resisted Cpl. Lee's efforts to arrest her. She testified that she resisted because she did not believe that she had done anything wrong. Relator further testified that Cpl. Lee and the EMS personnel dragged her out of the house to the police unit. She stated that she continued resisting when they got outside her house in the hopes that her neighbors would bear witness to her being dragged to the police unit by Cpl. Lee and EMS personnel when she had done nothing wrong.³

DISCUSSION

The sole issue that we are called upon to decide in this writ application is whether, at the time of Relator's arrest for resisting an officer by failure to provide identification, the officer was in the process of making a lawful arrest, lawful detention or seizure of property, or serving any lawful process or court order. In other words, we must determine whether Cpl. Lee had lawful grounds to arrest Relator, separate and apart from her refusal to provide her ID.

Cpl. Lee's testimony establishes that Relator was arrested by Cpl. Lee on the evening of October 29, 2023 solely for “resisting an officer by refusing to ID.” La. R.S. 14:108 provides, in pertinent part:

A. Resisting an officer is the intentional interference with, opposition or resistance to or obstruction of an individual acting in his official capacity and authorized by law to make a lawful arrest, lawful detention or seizure of property or to serve any lawful process or court order when the offender knows or has reason to know that the person arresting, detaining, seizing property, or serving process is acting in his official capacity.

B. (1) The phrase ‘obstruction of’ as used herein shall, in addition to its common meaning, signification and connotation mean the following:

***

(c) Refusal by the arrested or detained party to give his name and make his identity known to the arresting or detaining officer or providing false information regarding the identity of such party to the officer.

Louisiana jurisprudence has construed Section 108 to mean that “the resistance must have taken place while the officer or deputy is in his official capacity during an arrest, seizure of property, or service of process.” State v. Brister, 514 So.2d 205, 208 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1987), citing State v. Lindsay, 388 So.2d 781 (La. 1980); State v. Grogan, 373 So.2d 1300 (La. 1979); State v. Huguet, 369 So.2d 1331 (La. 1979). “It is a long-established principle in Louisiana law that a citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest.” Lindsay, 388 So.2d at 782. (Citations omitted).

In Lindsay, St. Tammany Parish sheriff's deputies were called to the defendant's property to investigate a report of a domestic disturbance. As the deputies were walking up the defendant's driveway, they were approached by the defendant, who demanded – using profane language – to know why they were on his property. The deputies stated that the defendant appeared to be intoxicated and continued to loudly demand – using obscene language – that they tell him why they were on his property. One of the deputies climbed onto a bumper of one of the vehicles parked in the defendant's driveway, prompting the defendant to yell at him to get off his truck – again, using obscene language. At that point, one of the deputies proceeded to arrest the defendant, who resisted by grabbing onto one of the truck mirrors. The defendant was subdued and placed under arrest for disturbing the peace due to intoxication and resisting an officer.

The defendant was acquitted of disturbing the peace by being intoxicated because he was on his own property, not in public, but was convicted of resisting an officer. On review, the Supreme Court first considered whether the deputies had probable cause to arrest the defendant on the charge of disturbing the peace by intoxication. Because the defendant was intoxicated on his own property and there was no evidence that the defendant disturbed the public, the Court found that the deputies did not have probable cause to arrest him on that charge. The Court next considered whether the defendant's use of abusive language and move towards one of the officers interfered with the deputies’ authority to investigate, and found that even if it did, this conduct is not proscribed by La. R.S. 14:108. Instead, that section prohibits conduct that interferes with the making of a lawful arrest, attempt to seize property, or service of process. Because the deputies were not engaged in any of those activities at the time defendant resisted them, his conviction was overturned.

The defendant's conviction for resisting an officer was also overturned in Brister. There, an officer observed a vehicle stopped in the southbound lane of traffic on the highway. The motor was not running, but the vehicle's lights were on. The defendant was observed sitting in the driver's seat, slumped against the door, with his left arm hanging out of the window. Over his PA system, the officer ordered the defendant to exit the vehicle. Defendant did not respond to this order. After the seventh or eighth such order, the defendant turned in his seat to see who was behind him. As he did so, the vehicle rolled forward about 10 to 15 feet. The officer then approached the car and asked the defendant to step out. This request was met with vulgar language and a hand gesture. The officer also observed the defendant start to reach for something between the seats. Fearing that the defendant was reaching for a weapon, the officer sprayed him with mace and pulled him from the car. Once out of the car, the officer secured the defendant with handcuffs, arrested him, advised him of his rights, and placed him in the patrol car. 514 So.2d at 206-07.

The officer stated that he smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath. The officer returned to the vehicle and found that it was in neutral and that there was a whiskey bottle in the car that was about three-quarters empty. The defendant's inspection sticker was also expired. No field sobriety test was administered. Upon being taken to jail, the defendant refused to take a breathalyzer or photo-intoximeter test. The defendant was charged with, and convicted of, DWI, resisting an officer and having an expired inspection sticker. Defendant filed an application for supervisory writs seeking to overturn his convictions on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. As to his conviction for resisting an officer, the defendant claimed that his actions of not exiting a vehicle when instructed by the officer was not sufficient to sustain a conviction for resisting an officer. Id. The court agreed, stating:

In the instant case, defendant was convicted of resisting an officer because he failed to get out of his car when ordered to do so and because he struggled with the officer who had just sprayed defendant with mace when the officer pulled him out of the car. Defendant was not placed under arrest until Officer Rachal had pulled him out of the vehicle. Prior to that time, Officer Rachal was merely conducting an investigation of the scene. Failure to obey an officer's order while he is merely investigating a scene is not resisting an officer. Lindsay, 388 So.2d at 783.

Since Officer Rachal was not in the process of arresting defendant at the time defendant allegedly resisted him, defendant cannot be guilty of resisting an officer.

Id. at 208. (Emphasis added).

In State v. Hoye, 94-445 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/14/94), 635 So.2d 1289, an officer and his partner observed a black male standing on a street corner with a tall beer can in his hand. They decided to stop him because it was against the law to have an open container in public. They testified that they had formed the intent to issue the man a summons at the time they approached him. When asked to identify himself, the defendant supplied a false name. Ultimately, the defendant gave the officers his real name but was unable to produce ID. The officers claimed that, because they believed that the defendant would not appear to answer the summons because they did not know his true identity, they placed him under arrest. During a search incident to the arrest, they discovered a crack pipe with cocaine residue in it and also charged the defendant with that offense, as well as resisting an officer by providing a false name. 635 So.2d at 1290. The court reversed the defendant's conviction for resisting an officer, stating:

Louisiana R.S. 14:108 B(c) involves refusal by an arrested party to give his name and make his identity known to an arresting officer. Here the defendant had not been arrested when he gave a bogus name. The State is stretching the facts to argue a violation of R.S. 14:108.

Id. (Emphasis added).

State v. Green, 97-702 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/97), 706 So.2d 536, involved a situation in which a deputy was pursuing a vehicle to make a traffic stop. The vehicle stopped, but the driver jumped out of the car and fled, leaving a passenger behind in the stopped car. The deputy approached the passenger side of the vehicle with his weapon drawn and twice ordered the passenger to get out of the car. The passenger twice looked at the deputy and “mumbled something,” but did not get out of the car. The deputy then holstered his weapon, opened the car door, and pulled the passenger from the vehicle onto his knees on the ground. He placed the defendant under arrest for resisting an officer, and then conducted a search incident to arrest, whereupon, the deputy found a crack pipe containing cocaine residue. As a result, he was also charged with possession of cocaine. We found that the defendant's initial arrest for resisting an officer was illegal, as a result of which, the evidence subsequently seized from the defendant should have been suppressed. Citing Lindsay and Brister, we stated:

[D]efendant herein interfered with an officer's investigation. Importantly, the record reflects that the officer was not engaged in attempting to seize property, serve process or make an arrest at the time that defendant refused to step out of the car. When an officer is not engaged in one of these three activities, then a defendant who opposes the officer is not resisting an officer within the meaning of La. R.S. 14:108. ․ Thus, defendant's arrest for that crime under the circumstances herein was unlawful.

In the instant case, the sole reason Relator was arrested was for refusing to provide her name and date of birth to Cpl. Lee when asked. Relator was inside her home at the time and there had been no complaints of disturbing the peace. Cpl. Lee responded to a person threatening suicide, but had determined that Relator was not suicidal and Mr. Sorensen's representation otherwise to the 9-1-1 dispatcher was a pretext. Although Cpl. Lee suspected that domestic violence had occurred, both Mr. Sorensen and Relator denied that any physical violence had been perpetrated by either party against the other, and Cpl. Lee observed no evidence of physical violence. Relator was highly intoxicated in her own home, which is not a crime. Cpl. Lee had no grounds to arrest the Relator for disturbing the peace, domestic violence, public intoxication or any other crime. Cpl. Lee could not have had a reasonable suspicion that any crime had been or was being committed. When he arrested Relator, he was not in the process of effecting a legal arrest, attempting to seize property, or serving process. Accordingly, Relator was not resisting an officer within the meaning of La. R.S. 14:108(B)(1)(c) when she refused to provide her name and date of birth to Cpl. Lee. We make no comment on any events that transpired in conjunction with Relator's physical arrest or booking since her conviction of attempted battery of a police officer was vacated by the trial court on her Motion for Acquittal.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Relator's writ application is granted and her conviction for resisting an officer (La. R.S. 14:108) is reversed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE REVERSED

FIFTH CIRCUIT

101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)

POST OFFICE BOX 489

GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054

www.fifthcircuit.org

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE

FREDERICKA H. WICKER

JUDE G. GRAVOIS

MARC E. JOHNSON

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL

TIMOTHY S. MARCEL

JUDGES

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

LINDA M. TRAN FIRST DEPUTY CLERK

MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF

(504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY JULY 2, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

25-KP-191

E-NOTIFIED

29TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)

HONORABLE LAUREN D. ROGERS (DISTRICT JUDGE)

AL M. THOMPSON, JR. (RELATOR)

MAILED

HONORABLE JOEL T. CHAISSON, II (RESPONDENT)

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

POST OFFICE BOX 680

HAHNVILLE, LA 70057

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court found that there is no offense punishable under Louisiana law for the attempted battery of a police officer.

2.   The offense of conviction is punishable only by a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both and, under La. C.Cr.P. art. 779, is not triable by jury. Our appellate jurisdiction is limited under Article 5, § 10(A) to criminal cases triable by jury. La. C.Cr.P. art. 912(C) provides, however, that a party may seek supervisory review of a conviction in a case not triable by jury.

3.   Relator claims that she suffered numerous and significant injuries in the process of her arrest when Cpl. Lee “threw” her to the ground, handcuffed her too tightly, and he and EMS personnel dragged her to the police unit an into the Correctional Center. Because these allegations have no bearing on whether Relator's initial arrest was lawful and whether her conviction should be vacated, we pretermit any discussion of these issues herein.

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER JUDGE