Defining Obstructing Legal Process
In a very general sense, to obstruct legal process means to interfere with the administration of the law. It is basically an offense against the calendar and the process of the court system. If someone’s conduct or actions would otherwise result in you getting served with a lawsuit or included in a lawsuit, but for that person’s conduct, they may be committing the crime of obstructing legal process. Very simply, you can commit obstruction of legal process in one of two ways: one, you can affect the ability of the process server to do their job; or two you can affect the ability of law enforcement to do their job.
As one example, if your estranged spouse is trying to serve you divorce papers and you purposely avoid being served, so they cannot complete the service of those papers; you may be committing the crime of obstructing legal process. The same thing goes for any other type of suit. If a judgment creditor is trying to have you personally served for post-judgment disclosure of assets , and you have not disclosed your assets, you’re likely committing the crime of obstructing legal process.
Likewise, if a process server is attempting to serve a notice of eviction for failure to pay rent, and you close the door, even though server has reasonable cause to believe that it was you who was at the door, and not a guest, you may be committing the crime of obstructing legal process.
The other half of this statute involves law enforcement officers. If a law enforcement officer is attempting to execute a valid warrant, and you barricade yourself inside your house or your business, you may be committing the crime of obstructing legal process.
Plain and simple, obstructing legal process is doing something, or omitting to do something, that will prevent the court’s process from being accomplished. This is a crime that occurs much more often than you might think.
Examples and Case Studies
The crime of obstructing legal process (also referred to as obstructing justice) can arise in a variety of contexts, but the underlying facts are typically focused on whether an officer was impeded in the performance of the duties and whether a person intentionally did an act that constitutes the offense.
1. Under Minnesota Statute §609.50, a person is guilty of obstructing legal process (obstructing justice) when the individual:
a. Interferes physically or by electronic means with the enforcement of the laws or the execution of legal process; or
b. Prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or coroner from performing a lawful duty.
2. While the above statute defines the elements of this crime, there are others ways that someone can be charged with this crime. For example, where a person knowingly and intentionally attempts to conceal evidence, a person could be charged with obstructing legal process. This was one of the charges levied against the "Baltimore Six"—the six police officers who were charged in the death of Freddie Gray. Officers have a duty to investigate and a right to the fruits of such investigation. At the very least, this is true for investigators of bona fide investigative agencies. The police, those whose duty it is to enforce our criminal laws, are no less entitled to the fruits of investigations they perform. McCoy v. State.
Common examples of obstructing legal process include the attempted removal of prohibited items (drugs, weapons, etc.), providing false information to an officer, or attempt to act as an intermediary between actions with the police or while a warrant was being executed.
3. The following are further examples of obstructing legal process taken from Minnesota cases: Probation Status Under Minnesota Statute §609.1352, a person may be charged with obstructing legal process if he or she: Obstructs or attempts to obstruct a lawfully executed search warrant, arrest warrant, order to locate, probation order, or warrant of commitment The Minnesota specific circumstances under which confusion arises with this charge is for the obstruction of a probation order. Under Minnesota Statute §609.1352, the conduct of the offender may be charged as a separate felony-level offense of obstruction of legal process. State v. Coleman. A person’s probationary status under Minnesota Statute §609.1352 can be serious. The Court of Appeals has stated that violating a lawful probation is akin to obstructing justice. If the violation does not rise to new charged felony, it can be a means of elevating a probation violation to a felony-level conviction. State v. Hawes.
Finally, a Minnesota Court of Appeals found that "obstructing legal process" includes dishonest behavior such as knowingly providing false information to an officer with the intent to mislead the officer. State v. Thoeun.
Consequences and Repercussions
The criminal justice system has made clear their view of obstructing legal process. As such, if convicted of this offense, the penalties can be quite severe. First and foremost, you should recognize this is a serious charge, and you will want to quickly contact a criminal defense attorney to address the issue.
An individual convicted of a petty misdemeanor oftentimes faces a maximum of 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. If the charge is classified as a gross misdemeanor (this occurs in more severe situations), you then face a maximum of one-year in jail and/or a fine up to $3,000. If you are charged with a felony, the maximum penalties increase to many more years in state prison and well over $3,000 in fines. The typical phrase you will hear from a judge is: "I have no option but to sentence you to the maximum allowable punishment for your crime because of the serious nature of obstructing legal process." In addition to having the personal stress of being charged and tried with committing an obstructing legal process crime, you now have the full weight of the criminal justice system about to come crashing down upon you.
Possible Defenses to Obstructing Legal Process
Defenses to Obstructing Legal Process Charges
In Minnesota, all criminal offenses require intent to commit the crime. This is particularly important in obstructing legal process cases because it effectively means that there can be no charge of obstructing legal process if the person being charged did not know an officer was attempting to take action against him or her. This is a controversial point in the law, however, because the jury may not buy the explanation that the person didn’t know what was happening. Context is important, therefore, and I have seen juries who believed that it was entirely appropriate to convict where an officer tries to arrest a person and the suspect pushes the officer away as the officer attempts to tackle him, thereby resulting in a charge of obstructing legal process.
For example, in the recent case of State v. McMillan, the defendant was staying with some friends. The police were called to his friends’ residence, and did not know that he was present. He got up and ran toward the back door, leading the police to believe that he was involved in criminal activity and trying to elude arrest. Ultimately, he was arrested and charged with, among other things, obstructing legal process. He successfully appealed those convictions and received a new trial on the basis of a very good appellate argument about what had happened. Essentially , his actions – running toward the back door – were not directed toward the officers, but toward the exit of the house. In this way, he was unconnected to the action of refusing to submit to arrest. I believe this to be a correct result, in light of the fact that the defendant was not aware that the officers were trying to arrest him, and of the potential for individuals to be charged with crimes when in fact they were not aware of what was occurring.
Another potential defense is to show that a police officer’s actions amounted to entrapment. Entrapment occurs where: A person is not guilty of an offense if the person was induced to commit it by a law enforcement officer or a person acting on behalf of a law enforcement officer by that the officer or person created a substantial risk that the person would commit the offense. The issue in this case is overbearing questioning. Compelling a suspect to answer questions he or she is legally allowed to refuse to answer is tantamount to forcing a person to submit to arrest. Neither police officers, nor private citizens, may force someone to submit to arrest or question someone to the point that they have no choice left to them other than to submit to arrest, and such behavior may result in a claim of entrapment.
The Effect of Obstruction on the Legal System
The implications of obstructing legal process extend beyond the immediate offense and can have serious implications for the legal system as a whole. When individuals or organizations fail to comply with sanctions, discovery requests, or other judicial mandates, the momentum of legal proceedings can be significantly hindered. Instead of allowing a case to move forward, the obstruction may cause a trial to be delayed, an agreement to break down, and attorneys and others to be subjected to extra work under adverse circumstances.
In addition to extending the length of time that a legal matter must be litigated, leaving an obstruction unaddressed may have further consequences. For example, if sanctions are not imposed, it may embolden the person to similarly obstruct other aspects of the case. When a paralegal, administrative staffer, evidence custodian, or other "back office" individual fails to comply with their legal duty, the party may be unaware of the issue until long after it has caused damage.
This is why even when legal action for obstruction is not pursued, it is important to focus on compliance and at a minimum, issue strong warnings and direct supervision regarding future obligations.
Current Trends and Issues
Recent developments in obstructing legal process cases are few and far between, but some interesting patterns are starting to emerge. Notably, there has been a marked increase in the use of "obstructing legal process" by law enforcement. Courts seem less willing to curb this trend in gun cases than in domestic violence cases. Lawyers should be aware of how difficult the element of requisite intent is to prove.
There have been no notable new "signposts" in interpreting the element of intent. In the absence of any relevant legal precedent, it is worth bearing in mind that no requisite intent is found where a party:
- intended to withhold information from police but not to actually prevent the officers from performing their duties; or
- only intended to delay the investigation; or
- did not know he or she was withholding information from the police while intending to actually stop them from arresting or searching a third party , thereby successfully preventing that arrest or search.
Put another way; just because you don’t want the cops to talk to a witness about a crime that you committed does not mean that you had the intent to prevent the police from performing their duties, because it’s not criminal to want to keep the police from learning that you committed a crime.
An example highlights this point in sharp relief: A man in Illinois was stopped at a Gas Station after his pickup truck billowed smoke from the hood. Seeing that smoke, the deputy asked the man if he was having engine trouble, and the man said no. When the deputy asked for the man’s driver’s license, he reached under the seat and removed a pistol. The deputy seized the pistol and arrested the man. The man later pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to probation.