In the case of John Bad Elk v. United States, 1899, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Bad Elk, a tribal police officer from South Dakota who was convicted for killing another tribal policeman while resisting arrest. The court overturned his conviction on grounds that he had been arrested without a warrant and outside any immediate threat to public safety or risk of flight - circumstances under which an individual has the right to resist arrest using reasonable force if necessary. The ruling clarified that law enforcement officers must have either a warrant or probable cause related to an ongoing crime before making an arrest; otherwise, individuals may legally resist such arrests even with lethal force if they are threatened with serious bodily harm or death.

In the dissenting opinion for John Bad Elk v. United States, Justice Peckham disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a federal law that allowed Native American police officers to arrest other tribal members without a warrant. He argued that this power was not absolute and should be limited by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Furthermore, he contended that even if an officer had such suspicion, they were still required to use only necessary force during an arrest. In this case, he believed there was no evidence showing John Bad Elk had committed any crime before being pursued by three policemen who intended to arrest him without explaining their reasons or producing a warrant. Therefore, in his view, John Bad Elk had the right to resist such unlawful actions and protect himself from potential harm caused by these officers' excessive use of force.