Florida's Officer Jason Raynor Act: Officer Force During Unlawful Arrests Is About to Be Legal

Right now in Florida, if a police officer arrests you and they know that arrest is illegal - no probable cause, no legal basis - and they put hands on you to force you to comply, that use of force is not justified under Florida law. It's battery. The officer is committing a crime. That's been the law for over fifty years. The Officer Jason Raynor Act (SB 156) deletes that protection. And I need you to understand what that means.

The Law: Florida Statute 776.051 (Since 1974)

Florida Statute 776.051 has been on the books since 1974. Over fifty years. It creates a deal between citizens and the government - two subsections, two sides of the same coin.

That makes sense. If the officer is acting in good faith and executing a legal duty, you cannot use force to resist. Nobody argues with that.

This is the part most people don't know about. If the officer knows the arrest is unlawful, the officer's use of force is not justified. If they use force anyway, that's battery. The officer is committing a crime - not you.

That's the deal. Citizens can't use force to resist lawful arrests. Officers can't use force to carry out unlawful ones. Both sides have limits.

Passive Resistance Is Not Force

In law enforcement training, there's a resistance continuum. Passive resistance means you don't comply, but you don't fight. You go limp. You sit down. Dead weight. That's not force - that's noncompliance. 776.051 is about the use of force to resist. Passive resistance isn't force.

So here's how this plays out right now: You passively resist during an arrest the officer knows is unlawful. You go limp. That's not force, so 776.051 doesn't prohibit what you're doing. But when the officer escalates and uses force to overcome your noncompliance - subsection (2) says their force is not justified. They're the ones breaking the law. Not you. That use of force is battery.

That's what subsection (2) does. It doesn't give you a right. It puts a limit on them.

The Case Law: Tillman and Perry

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court decided Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263. The court ruled that 776.051 - by its plain terms - is limited to actual arrests. Not detentions. Not pat-downs. Not traffic stops where you're being held but not formally arrested.

The court drew a line and essentially told the legislature: if you want this statute to apply more broadly, that's your call to make.

Seven months later, in Perry v. State, 953 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2007), they reaffirmed it. Same holding. 776.051 applies to arrests only.

For twenty years, the legislature did nothing about that gap. Until now.

The Legislation: Two Changes, One Cover Story

Enter the Officer Jason Raynor Act. Senate Bill 156. It passed the Senate 31-4 on January 29, 2026, and is sitting in the House now.

There are two things happening in this bill, and one of them is being used as cover for the other.

They used a reasonable codification of case law - adding "detention" - as the vehicle to remove the only statutory limit on officer force during knowingly unlawful arrests. The codification is the cover. The deletion is the payload.

The bill also codifies a definition of "good faith" that didn't previously exist: "sincere and reasonable efforts to comply with legal requirements, even if the arrest, detention, or other act is later found to have been unlawful."

What This Means in Practice: Use of Force Policies

Here's where this gets real. I went through the law enforcement academy. I went through the training. And this is the part that should concern you.

In law enforcement training, when a subject passively resists - goes limp, sits down, dead weight - the use of force continuum authorizes specific responses:

• Pain compliance techniques
• Contact controls and joint restraints
• Nerve-center controls
• Chemical agents (pepper spray)

Sources: OCSO Policy 300, FDLE Basic Recruit Training (CJSTC curriculum), FDLE High Liability Training - Use of Force module

These are all policy-authorized responses to passive resistance. This is what officers are trained to do when someone goes limp. The force options have always been there. What held them in check was subsection (2) - the one sentence that said officer force is not justified during knowingly unlawful arrests.

This bill doesn't authorize new kinds of force. It removes the one thing that made the existing force illegal. The force options were always there in the use of force policy. They were held in check by a single sentence in the statute. That sentence is about to be deleted.

The Raynor Disconnect

The bill is named after Officer Jason Raynor, a 26-year-old Daytona Beach police officer who was investigating a suspicious vehicle on June 23, 2021. The occupant got out, pushed Officer Raynor, and during the struggle shot him in the head. He succumbed to his injuries. The suspect fled to Atlanta, was arrested three days later, and was convicted of manslaughter. He's serving 30 years.

That is a tragedy. Full stop.

But Officer Raynor was shot in the head. He was killed with a firearm. That is not resisting arrest. That is not 776.051. That is homicide. At no point in the history of Florida law has anyone successfully argued that shooting a police officer is justified resistance under 776.051. That defense doesn't exist. That "loophole" never existed.

And yet this bill is being sold as "closing a loophole" in response to what happened to Officer Raynor. What it's actually doing is giving officers legal protection to use force during knowingly unlawful arrests - something that has nothing to do with what happened to Officer Raynor.

That's not closing a loophole. That's using a murdered officer's name to shield bad arrests from consequences.

Public records show 10 registered lobbyists supporting the bill - 8 representing the Florida League of Cities (municipalities that employ police departments), 1 representing the Florida Sheriffs Association, and 1 representing a regional transit authority. This is the third time this legislation has been introduced. It passed the Senate 31-4. It's sitting in the House now.

Who Does This Bill Actually Protect?

Ask yourself: when does subsection (2) actually matter? It only kicks in when an officer knows the arrest is unlawful and uses force anyway. That's not a good cop making an honest mistake. That officer was already protected under subsection (1) - the good faith provision.

This bill protects the officer who knows the arrest is bad and uses force anyway. That's who loses liability for battery when you delete subsection (2).

Other Changes in the Bill

The Officer Jason Raynor Act doesn't just rewrite 776.051. It also amends Florida Statute 843.01 (resisting with violence), changing the requirement from "lawful execution of a legal duty" to "performance of official duties" - the same language swap. Additional changes include:

• Mandates life without parole for anyone convicted of manslaughter of a law enforcement officer
• Increases penalties for battery, aggravated battery, and assault against officers
• Expands protected personnel to include correctional officers, probation officers, and auxiliary officers

Notably, the bill does not amend Florida Statute 843.02 (resisting without violence). That charge still requires proof that the officer was engaged in the "lawful execution of a legal duty." However, the changes to 776.051 and 843.01 significantly narrow the defenses available in cases involving any physical contact or force.

What This Means for You

You can still verbally assert your rights. Saying "I do not consent to this search," "I'm invoking my right to remain silent," or "I want a lawyer" is not resisting. Those are constitutionally protected statements, and nothing in this bill changes that.

What changes under this bill is what happens when the officer uses force during an arrest they know is unlawful. Right now, that force is battery. Under this bill, the officer is legally protected.

• Still protected: Verbally asserting your rights, requesting a lawyer, refusing consent to a search
• Still protected: Using reasonable force to defend against excessive force during any encounter
• Changed by this bill: The officer who uses force during a knowingly unlawful arrest was committing battery. Under this bill, they're not. They're legally protected.