Article 95 UCMJ – Resistance, Flight, Breach of Arrest, or Escape
UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington
Article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes four separate but related offenses: resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape. These offenses apply when a service member allegedly resists lawful apprehension, flees from apprehension, violates conditions of arrest or restriction, or escapes from custody.
Article 95 cases are common in the modern military because they frequently arise from emotionally charged incidents, misunderstandings, alcohol-fueled interactions with military police, disputes during domestic incidents, or panic reactions when service members believe they are in trouble. Many accused flee or resist instinctively, not criminally.
Florida’s military communities—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard units—see particularly high numbers of Article 95 cases due to the state’s active nightlife, alcohol incidents, and heavy presence of civilian and military law enforcement.
Gonzalez & Waddington defends Article 95 cases by exposing unlawful apprehension, officer misconduct, mistaken identity, panic responses, and the lack of criminal intent in alleged resistance or flight situations.
What Article 95 Criminalizes
Article 95 includes four distinct offenses:
1. Resistance
Intentionally resisting a lawful apprehension.
2. Flight
Running from a lawful apprehension.
3. Breach of Arrest
Leaving the limits of required arrest or restriction (e.g., pretrial restriction).
4. Escape
Escaping from custody, confinement, or control.
Each subsection has separate elements and potential punishments.
When Article 95 is Most Commonly Charged
- Alcohol incidents with MPs or civilian police
- Refusing to comply during domestic disputes
- Running away during bar fights or disorderly scenes
- Breaking restriction or liberty limits
- Walking away from military police before questioning
- Struggling when handcuffs are applied
- Leaving a scene out of fear or confusion
- Resisting apprehension by NCIS, OSI, CID, or CGIS
Most cases involve panic—not criminal intent.
Elements for Each Offense Under Article 95
Resistance
- A person authorized to apprehend attempted to detain the accused
- The apprehension was lawful
- The accused knew the apprehender was authorized
- The accused intentionally resisted
Flight
- The accused fled from a person authorized to apprehend
- The accused knew they were being apprehended
- The apprehension was lawful
Breach of Arrest
- The accused was legally under arrest or restriction
- They knew their boundaries
- They intentionally left without authority
Escape
- The accused was in custody or confinement
- The custody was imposed lawfully
- The accused intentionally left custody or confinement
What Article 95 Is NOT
- Accidental pulling away during handcuffing
- Misunderstanding or miscommunication with police
- Flight due to fear or panic (not intent)
- Breaking restriction unintentionally (wrong building/door)
- Being drunk and confused about what police said
- Running away because others ran first
- Leaving during an assault to avoid further injury
Intent is the key factor—without it, there is no Article 95 offense.
Why Article 95 Cases Are Often Weak
- The apprehension itself was unlawful
- The accused did not know they were being apprehended
- The accused fled due to fear or confusion
- Police were aggressive or unclear
- Witnesses were drunk or unreliable
- There was insufficient evidence of intent
- Restriction boundaries were vague or not explained
- Custody status was not properly communicated
Commands often charge Article 95 to “make an example” after chaotic incidents.
Why Article 95 Allegations Are Common in Florida
Florida’s environment contributes heavily to these types of cases:
- Intense nightlife in Jacksonville Beach, Pensacola, Miami, Tampa, and Key West
- High alcohol use among junior enlisted populations
- Military bases located near civilian police-heavy areas
- Frequent misunderstandings with local law enforcement
- Domestic disputes involving alcohol or stress
- Shipboard and aircraft squadron operations creating high stress
Many Article 95 charges begin when police interaction escalates unnecessarily.
Florida-Specific Article 95 Scenarios
1. Running from Military Police After a Bar Fight
Service member flees due to fear or confusion—not intent to resist.
2. Misunderstood Order by Civilian Police
Tourist-heavy environments create miscommunication.
3. Domestic Dispute Where Accused “Pulls Away”
Often labeled resistance, but actually reflexive movement.
4. Shipboard Security Confrontations
Mayport sailors confused or startled during nighttime incidents.
5. Breaking Restriction After Mental Health Crisis
No criminal intent—accused simply needed help.
6. Leaving the Scene of a Dangerous Altercation
Fleeing to avoid harm is NOT criminal under Article 95.
7. Weekend Drinking Episodes in Pensacola
Drunk trainees panic during police contact.
8. Wildlife Hazards in Florida
Running from an alligator or animal—not resisting MPs.
9. Traffic Stop Misunderstandings
Accused drives a few yards forward looking for a safe place to stop.
10. Language or Cultural Barriers
Common in Miami, Tampa, and Orlando recruiting regions.
How Article 95 Investigations Work
Expect involvement from:
- Base security forces
- Civilian police
- NCIS, CID, OSI, or CGIS
- Command-directed investigations (CDI/15-6/JAGMAN)
- Witness statements
- Body-worn camera footage
- Surveillance cameras
- Medical reports (for injuries)
Common Investigator Mistakes We Expose
- Labelling reflexive or startled behavior as intentional resistance
- Incorrectly assuming the accused knew they were being apprehended
- Relying on intoxicated witnesses
- Failing to review full bodycam footage
- Unlawful apprehension or overreach by MPs or police
- Misidentifying the accused in chaotic scenes
Defense Strategies for Article 95 Cases
1. Unlawful Apprehension Defense
If the arrest was unlawful, resistance or flight may be justified.
2. Panic or Fear Response
Fight-or-flight instinct is not criminal intent.
3. Self-Defense
The accused may react to excessive force or aggressive tactics.
4. Confusion or Misunderstanding
Especially with intoxication, loud environments, or heavy stress.
5. Wrong Person Misidentified
Florida nightlife scenes are chaotic—misidentification is common.
6. False or Exaggerated Reports
- Command bias
- Civilian police unfamiliar with military conduct
- Rivalries or barracks drama
7. Mental Health Crisis Defense
PTSD, depression, anxiety, or panic attacks can affect behavior.
8. No Actual Escape or Breach
Boundaries of restriction or arrest must be clearly lawful and explained.
Pro Tips for Anyone Accused of Article 95
- Do NOT provide statements to MPs or police.
- Avoid apologizing—it can be used as a confession.
- Preserve all bodycam, CCTV, and phone video if possible.
- Make a private written timeline immediately.
- Identify sober witnesses.
- Do not delete digital messages or videos.
- Hire an experienced civilian UCMJ defense lawyer immediately.
Related UCMJ Articles
- UCMJ Article Hub
- Article 85 – Desertion
- Article 86 – AWOL
- Article 92 – Failure to Obey
- Article 134 – Fleeing the Scene
Article 95 – Frequently Asked Questions
Is running away always a crime under Article 95?
No. Running due to fear, danger, confusion, or intoxication is not automatically flight under Article 95. The prosecution must prove you knew you were being lawfully apprehended and intentionally fled.
What if the military police used excessive force?
Excessive or unlawful force may justify resistance or flight. We aggressively expose unlawful apprehension to defeat charges.
Can I be punished for violating restriction?
Yes, if the government proves you knew the boundaries and intentionally left without authority. Many cases fail because boundaries were unclear or improperly imposed.
What if I pulled away instinctively during handcuffing?
Involuntary reactions are NOT resistance. Many Article 95 charges are thrown out once bodycam footage shows reflexive movement—not intentional defiance.
Why hire Gonzalez & Waddington?
Because Article 95 cases are often misunderstood by command but aggressively prosecuted. We are global leaders in defending high-stakes UCMJ cases with deep experience exposing police overreach, misidentification, and lack of intent. We protect your rank, reputation, and future.