What is Obstruction of Legal Process
What Constitutes Obstruction of Legal Process is a disorderly conduct charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(4). Essentially this is nothing more than an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. An example may make this easier to understand. Let us say that the police have a warrant for person’s arrest. That person, however, is not home one night and the police decide to go to his house during the early morning hours. They knock on the door and get no answer. The police hear someone moving inside and start calling out the person’s name. Because they hear movement inside and are confident that the person is in fact home, the officers make the rather foolish decision to force their way into the residence (which is illegal) . As soon as they force their way in, the person runs out the back door.
If this were to occur in Franklin, NJ, the person who ran could be charged with aggravated assault on a police officer and obstruction of justice. This is because the police are required by law to serve the warrant and have gone to the home to do so. By running out the back, that person disobeyed the lawful command of the officer. If he were to simply stay where he is and await the police to serve the warrant, he would not be guilty of the obstruction charge. We know this from State v. Pollard, 393 N.J. Super. 95 (Law Div. 2007).
Consequence of Obstructing Legal Process
Violators of obstruction of legal process laws typically face criminal fines as well as jail time. The exact penalty for an obstruction of justice charge depends on the circumstances. It is usually a felony if you are charged with a crime while you were trying to flee or destroy evidence.
Both the misdemeanor and felony versions of obstruction of justice carry a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500.
In California, the state court system treats obstruction of justice with much greater severity than federal law. Violators might be charged with felony penal code 96 (PC 96) charges if they have done any of the following:
The minimum penalty under 96 for felony obstruction of justice is a year in jail and a maximum fine of $20,000.
Minnesota law seriously punishes anyone who intentionally interferes with a law enforcement officer, an arrest process, or a court proceeding. There are two degrees of criminal court obstruction:
1st degree – Felony (MN Statute 609.50.1) You may be charged with felony obstruction of justice if you do any of the following: 1. Intentionally cause physical harm to a officer performing official duties 2. Use threatening, abusive, or obscene language or gestures toward a police officer or up until now has focused on the officer’s performance of their duties 3. Intentionally disarm a police officer performing official duties 4. Intentionally cause bodily harm to a police officer performing official duties 5. Attempt to interfere with a police officer performing official duties
Misdemeanor charges for obstructing justice are much less severe than those for felony charges. They include:
1st degree – Felony Prison time – 3 years, parole time – 1 year, fine – $5,000 ($50,000 for aggravated offenses)
2nd degree – Misdemeanor Jail time – 90 days, fine – $1,000
A motorist who improperly displays a flashing or rotating light, a siren, or a siren and flashing blue lights commits a petty misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $300-500.
15-312. Reckless endangerment; obstruction of emergency services A. A person commits a class 6 felony by knowingly or intentionally doing either of the following: 1. Causing physical injury or death to, or placing another in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical injury or death, by recklessly handling, discharging or using an object that appears to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or by other act that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death of a person with whom the person was in a tempory domestic relationship. 2. Obstructing a person from calling 911 for emergency assistance or seeking medical treatment for injury or use of force against the person by any of the following: (a) Intentionally damaging or removing a telephone line or device, wireless service device, commercial mobile radio service, any equipment connected to the telephone line or wireless connection or equipment owned by the service provider or integrated communications device used to communicate emergency services. (b) Using intimidation, physical force or threat of physical force to prevent, attempt to prevent or otherwise interfere with the report of an emergency to a law enforcement agency or the furnishing of medical treatment to a person. (c) Physicallly restraining a person.
Common Examples of Obstruction
Though not exhaustive, there are several scenarios where obstruction of legal process could be alleged. Obviously, the most apparent and commonly recurring situation may be when a person involved in a court matter or legal proceeding, or a witness, refuses to comply with a reasonable demand of a court or law enforcement personnel for testimony or documents. For example, if you receive a subpoena compelling your attendance at a deposition or for trial or for other judicial proceedings, failure to appear in accordance with the subpoena could subject you to a lawful order of the court that was specifically issued for your testimony.
However, obstruction can occur before, during or after a legal proceeding. Examples of obstruction of legal process can also be alleged during the investigation stage of criminal matters, including investigations conducted by administrative agencies or those acting on behalf of the government. In Minnesota there are a variety of statutes that relate to interference with police officers and investigations. One common example occurs when a person, acting as a bystander, may refuse to follow the lawful orders of a police officer, including those intended solely to maintain safety and control at a given scene. A person who refuses to comply with a lawful order, even as a bystander, may face criminal charges for that conduct.
There are also many potential scenarios related to obstruction of justice in a more generic context, such as when a person chooses to hide or destroy evidence, or lies to law enforcement officers. Such allegations may arise, for example, in familial matters involving children. There could be a dispute between spouses regarding the location or legal status of the child or custody rights. In those cases, one party to the marriage (whether they are married or not) may conspire to keep the child hidden; whether intentionally or through neglect, knowing that the other party is searching for the child. Simply refusing to provide accurate and timely information to the other spouse could also lead to an allegation of obstructing justice in a parenting context.
Defenses Against Obstructing Legal Process
There are legal defenses that may be raised against an obstruction of legal process charge or allegation, and these include lack of knowledge of the facts, claiming that the charge is improper or that the force or violence alleged was not necessary to overcome the resistance involved. These defenses may apply in situations where the alleged violator is not aware that a lawful process is underway. An example of this would be paperwork that has been served on another person but not the alleged violator , creating a situation in which it is unlawful to impede a process of which the party is not aware. In the example of impeding a process, an exception may apply if the alleged violator has not made any effort to determine what the subject of the exertion of force was about, possibly indicating a reckless indifference to the rights of others.
Trust in the Public and Legal Consequences
While the effect on victims, witnesses, or the justice system in general is significant, obstruction of legal process also poses a danger to society as a whole. Every crime that goes unpunished chips away at the public’s belief in the efficacy and fairness of the justice system, which can, over time, erode societal respect for future cases that come before the courts. In this way, the long-game impact of obstruction of legal process is not just limited to criminal cases, but stretches to include the inroads it makes against the fairness of any order issued by a court. Every unwarranted defense mounted in bad faith makes it that much more difficult for the next litigant to enjoy the presumption of truth and lawfulness that every order is presumed to have. This prejudice means that the granting of future relief for innocent parties, or defense of future actions brought against the estate of the offending party, becomes all that much more difficult.
It is also a question of ethics and practicality that lawyers and judges cannot ignore. Allowing criminal activity to go un-undone not only renders it more likely that the offender will continue to act out again, but it also conveys a tacit approval of the actions that have already caused the jury’s guilty verdict or judge’s order to go unenforced and therefore unpunished. By the same token, lawyers who allow their clients to take these unreasonable stances risk their reputations and future practice opportunities, as well as the communication of their values to the public at large that criminal defiance of the courts is not only more likely to go unpunished than to succeed, it may in fact be the preferred methodology to remain free from conviction. In other words, an attitude among lawyers that period of review for most of these actions is only 30 days, and therefore it’s worth it to fix the problem then, if necessary, encourages the taking of risks that not only damage the legal system, but also convey to the public that it is okay to break the law, even with an anti-establishment bias, provided you’re willing to expend the effort to stretch the process out long enough for the law to change in your favor. That erosion of respect and utility within the entire legal system as a whole may be much harder to corral back in than simply enforcing the law in the first instance.
Preventing Obstruction of Legal Process
A crucial aspect of preventing obstruction of legal process lies in maintaining open and transparent communication lines both within legal proceedings and between the justice system and the public. Legal professionals should offer clear explanations to parties involved as to the procedures that will be undertaken, as well as to their rights and responsibilities. This clarifying information can help reduce the potential for deliberate obstructions as parties and individuals become better aware of the legal proceedings.
For the public, being informed about what constitutes obstruction, and the potential consequences of such actions , is essential in helping deter potential obstructions from occurring in the first place. Public awareness campaigns or information releases can be helpful in this regard.
In addition to this, it is beneficial to promote an environment in which individuals are less likely to obstruct legal proceedings, whether through organized community outreach or education programs, or in working with various organizations or bodies involved in the justice system. Persons with a keen interest in supporting the justice system and preventing obstruction of legal process could partner with law enforcement agencies in planning and executing these initiatives.