Here's a link to the case summaries for January, 25, 2008:
Case Summaries
Don't worry, we are still sending the case summaries out by e-mail. However, we wanted to give the prosecutors involved in the cases, the commentators and everyone else a place to discuss those cases in the summaries.

The opinion on resisting arrest is a breath of fresh air. I hope the CCA affirms.

The opinion does show respect for the difficulties faced by an officer who, when making an arrest, is faced with resistance to authority. The offense, after all, was designed to discourage the arrestee from resisting the arrest, whether by twisting away or using other more direct force.

It also clarifies, in my opinion, the difference between resisting and assault on a public servant. I've had many defense lawyers try to argue that resisting requires "force" which would be practically and assault, but for injury element, i.e. they argue the State should have to show that they tried to do something to the officer, rather than merely trying not to do what the officer was requiring of them. My response was "If the officer is using force to try to get your hands behind your back, and he can't do it because you are preventing it, then you are using force against the officer." Elementary physics, right?

That's a good point. And, early on, that's the sort of line that prosecutors placed between resisting and assault. But, then, as you suggest, the notion of the use of force against the officer got introduced. It never made sense, and it resulted in lots of assault cases being filed as resisting cases. Maybe now the line will return to something more clear.