Obstructing Legal Process Requires Proof of–Well–Obstructing “Process”

State v. Pederson, Minn.Ct.App., 12/9/2013.  The state charged Ms. Pederson with fourth degree assault of a peace officer, and with obstructing legal process.  Here’s what was going on.  The cops were at Ms. Pederson’s place on a report, apparently from a neighbor, of loud yelling.  Ms. Pederson answered the door when the officers knocked on it and stepped out into the hallway.  She tried to shut the door but an officer put his foot in the doorway to prevent it.  Ms. Pederson was apparently intoxicated, upset, and she had a bit of blood on her finger.  She told the cops that she was home alone but the officers could hear “loud rustling” – a dog perhaps? – from inside the apartment so they tried to go inside.  Ms. Pederson tried to block their entry and she got into it with the officers.  One officer managed to get into the apartment; the other one fared not so well.  In the scuffle Ms. Pederson kicked the other officer in the head, behind the ear.

On appeal from her convictions of these two gross misdemeanors Ms. Pederson argued that the state’s evidence was insufficient to support those convictions.  She said that the kick to the officer’s head was just as likely an accident, an alternative rational hypothesis.  The court of appeals wasn’t buying that argument and affirmed that conviction.

On the obstructing charge, Ms. Pederson said that she did not commit conduct prohibited by subdivision (1) of that statute.  That subdivision requires proof that she “obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense.”  Minn.Stat. 609.50, subd. 1(1).  The trial court had found her guilty under this subdivision because of her conduct of continuing “to fight, grab, and physically obstruct [the officers’] entry into her apartment with her body.” 

The court focuses in on “process,” both “legal process” – like serving a subpoena – and the “process” of apprehending someone.  Just being a pain in the ass doesn’t make it “obstruction” under subdivision 1(1).  When Ms. Pederson assaulted the officer, the police weren’t serving process on her or another, there was no legal action pending, and they were not attempting (yet) to arrest her or another.  Ms. Pederson may have made the cops’ job more difficult, but she wasn’t “obstructing” any “process”.