What is Obstruction of Legal Process
An individual "obstructs legal process" when he or she prevents another from executing a process "that was legally available to him." State v. Menken, 195 N.W.2d 754, 755 (Minn. 1972). Therefore, "the offense includes knowing interference generally with the administration of law and justice in addition to interference with or obstruction of persons who are pursuing specifically lawful functions." State v. Mitchell, 294 Minn. 149, 155, 201 N.W.2d 343 , 346 (1972) (internal citations omitted). The phrase "legal process" does not refer only to a particular process but to "the general ‘process’ of administering law and justice." Id. "A key feature of the offense is the knowing, intentional conduct of a defendant that impedes the orderly ‘administration of law and justice.’" State v. Squillace, 622 N.W.2d 435, 440 (Minn. 2001) (internal citations omitted). Where "orderly administration of law and justice" is impeded, courts have found that an officer is obstructed for obstruction of legal process.
Elements of the Crime
Minneapolis criminal lawyer refer to the legal process many different ways. Among those are: legal process, civil process, court process, and process of law. The main purpose of any of these processes is to give a party due notice and an opportunity to respond to the authority enforcing the process. The elements of obstruction of legal process are found in Minnesota Statute 609.50 and they are: 1) The obstruction 2) Of process being served 3) By ordinance or by legal authority 4) and the actor knows that the agent is a lawfully authorized individual or pursuant to an order, judgment, or execution. In other words, do not interfere with someone serving you with a summons and complaint, a warrant, an order, or similar court directive. To accomplish this, the prosecution must prove each of these elements.
Common Examples and Situations
In many cases, the actions that give rise to obstruction of legal process charges are relatively straightforward. However, Minnesota jurisprudence has also developed cases that help bolster or narrow the scope of what might otherwise be considered an obstruction of legal process.
For example, in State of Minnesota v. King, a 1993 Minnesota Court of Appeals case, the defendant was charged with a violation of obstruction because he had put himself between a police officer and his girlfriend, who the officers were attempting to arrest. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the conviction on grounds that the girlfriend had suffered trauma during the incident, as demonstrated by bruising and scratches near her neck.
This stands in contrast to a case commonly referred to as Kammeyer. In that case, the defendant told a sheriff’s deputy that the deputy could not arrest him on rape and attempted burglary charges without a warrant. When the deputy produced the warrant, he produced his own. Since the defendant’s trepidation about the arrest was disappointing to the court, the defendant was charged with obstruction of legal process.
The Minnesota Supreme Court found that even though the arrest was physically prevented by the defendant, it was legal. There is no obstruction of legal process if the underlying acts leading the police to need to be present were themselves legal.
Sometimes, the police themselves can contribute to the impeded legal process. For example, in State of Minnesota v. Messina, a 1982 Minnesota Court of Appeals case, the defendant received a false eviction notice, padlocked the door, took out the front porch and even threatened to kill the sheriff and the sheriff’s partner. The defendant was charged with obstructing legal process. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed because the landlord never got to the apartment even after having legal written permission to go in.
Possible Outcomes and Penalties
A conviction for obstruction of legal process in Minnesota is a misdemeanor level offense. This means that a conviction will result in a criminal record and potential incarceration in jail up to 90 days, as well as a fine of up to $1,000. However, in most situations the real consequences of a misdemeanor level conviction are extended supervision through probation, which can last several years.
Violating terms of probation for a misdemeanor conviction can lead to increased punishment for a subsequent conviction for misdemeanor level offense. For example, if you are convicted of a misdemeanor obstruction of legal process charge and then subsequently charged with a felony obstruction of legal process within the probationary term, the punishment and possible penalty will be increased to felony level penalties.
Felony level obstruction of legal process is an extremely serious offense, carrying a possible 5 year prison sentence and up to $10,000 fine. Given the severe penalties that can be assessed for a conviction on felony obstruction of legal process charges, you must take any felony charge very seriously.
Available Defenses
To be convicted of obstruction of the legal process, the defendant must have committed one of the above obstructing acts with the intent to obstruct a judicial process. Essentially, this means that if you are presumed to know whether the court is in a judicial proceeding or simply filling out the paperwork, its possible that you didn’t have the intent required to obstruct the court .
If the defense attorney can show that the defendant did not know, or even think, that the court was in a judicial proceeding at the time of the alleged offense, they may be able to convince the jury that the defendant had no intention of obstructing the court’s work.
There are other defenses that may be used to challenge an obstruction of legal process charge, including use of force and disorderly conduct defenses. Legal defenses are more factual and can only be evaluated in relation to the specific charges, circumstances and evidence being used against you.
Importance of a Legal Defense
In both felony and gross misdemeanor obstruction of legal process cases, a lawyer can be highly useful at an early stage to ensure the right charges are brought in the right court. They can appear on your behalf at a probable cause or bail hearing if you’re in custody and request pre-charging diversion programs in appropriate cases so as to prevent charges from being filed altogether. If charges are filed, they may be able to work with the prosecutor in the early stages of the case to keep the matter out of court and to enter you into a program that will prevent charges in the first place. While this approach requires the help of a lawyer sooner in the process than most people realize is possible, it can be well worth it when it is successful. In some limited circumstances, diversion may also be possible post-charge.
The importance of hiring a lawyer sooner rather than later also cannot be overstated when it comes to police interrogation. Most people have heard enough about Miranda rights (and have probably seen numerous videos of people waiving their rights) to know that you do not have the right to a lawyer during an investigatory interview unless formal charges have been brought. But you actually have the right to have a lawyer present before formal charges are brought in the event you are taken into custody. And while it is true that you have the right to talk with the police about whatever they want, they do not have the right to physically coerce you into doing so. If you are physically coerced into talking to the police or signing a statement, it can make a difference in your case. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help safeguard your rights and your freedom.
Case Law and Precedents
The application of obstruction of legal process charges is not limited to the example given above. In Minnesota, there are notable cases where obstruction of legal process has been an important charge in a criminal case: A recent real-life example comes from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed a defendant’s conviction of felony escape from custody. The defendant’s escape was possible due to an error by a transportation officer who handcuffed him only to his hands, and not to the waist chain. He was only able to escape because of this mistake. The defendant’s conviction was affirmed because the court found that he had not made any "substantial steps" necessary to avoid a felony, as per Minnesota law , as he ran away and did not go with a ruse to "escape". In another case, a man was charged with obstruction of a legal process when he attempted to prevent a police officer from arresting someone. The police arrived at the accused home to question the individual, and a brief struggle erupted. Since the police had no legal right to enter the premises, the accused attempted to block them when they tried to cross the threshold into his home. The police arrested him for obstruction of legal process. This particular case sheds light on the limitations of obstruction of legal process laws in Minnesota. While the authorities have broad powers, the courts will be careful to ensure that those powers are not abused.