Please analyze this ordinance

[Nukedaddy]

Below is a copy/paste from a legal document website that carrys the complete city ordinances of my hometown. I think it is far too broadly written and is an example of how such ordinances can be bent to a purpose at odds with constitutional intents.

6-5-8: RESISTING OR OBSTRUCTING POLICE/FIRE PROHIBITED:

It shall be unlawful to knowingly resist or obstruct the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or firefighter of any authorized act within their official capacity. (Ord. 3609, 2020)

This was all the ordinances have to say. The town is in Illinois. There is no glossary defining obstruct.
What is the group opinion?

 

[S.SaulGood]

Below is a copy/paste from a legal document website that carrys the complete city ordinances of my hometown. I think it is far too broadly written and is an example of how such ordinances can be bent to a purpose at odds with constitutional intents.

6-5-8: RESISTING OR OBSTRUCTING POLICE/FIRE PROHIBITED:

It shall be unlawful to knowingly resist or obstruct the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or firefighter of any authorized act within their official capacity. (Ord. 3609, 2020)

This was all the ordinances have to say. The town is in Illinois. There is no glossary defining obstruct.
What is the group opinion?

6-5-8

verb. If you resist someone or resist an attack by them, you fight back against them. The man was shot outside his house as he tried to resist arrest. [ VERB noun] When she had attempted to cut his nails he resisted.

verb

1. block (an opening, path, road, etc.); be or get in the way of.
   "she was obstructing the entrance"
   
   
   
   • prevent or hinder (movement or someone or something in motion).
     "they had to alter the course of the stream and obstruct the natural flow of the water"

In the case of those codes and ordinances, it seems fairly cut and dry as pertaining to hindering/interfering/distracting police or firefighters in the performance of their duties

 

[Nukedaddy]

Hmmm… Those are fine as dictionary definitions. But we read and view many sources that describe obstruction as a physical act ONLY. Such as grabbing a policeman to prevent him from catching a bad guy or parking your car in the police station driveway to prevent them from responding. However, a majority of the obstruction arrests seen in audit videos are NOT of a physical act nature. They are things like declining to identify, taking video of “restricted” places or things and talking to or advising persons in police detention that they should keep silent. All these are passive acts.
What my question is intended to clarify is the definition limits of what constitutes obstruction. Yes, tripping a cop chasing a purse snatcher will get you rightfully arrested. But will a videographer exercising the first amendment right to record distract an officer from his duty to the point that the videographer is guilty of obstruction? And, is the definition the same in all states, municipalities and what about federal officers?

 

[S.SaulGood]

Hmmm… Those are fine as dictionary definitions. But we read and view many sources that describe obstruction as a physical act ONLY. Such as grabbing a policeman to prevent him from catching a bad guy or parking your car in the police station driveway to prevent them from responding. However, a majority of the obstruction arrests seen in audit videos are NOT of a physical act nature. They are things like declining to identify, taking video of “restricted” places or things and talking to or advising persons in police detention that they should keep silent. All these are passive acts.
What my question is intended to clarify is the definition limits of what constitutes obstruction. Yes, tripping a cop chasing a purse snatcher will get you rightfully arrested. But will a videographer exercising the first amendment right to record distract an officer from his duty to the point that the videographer is guilty of obstruction? And, is the definition the same in all states, municipalities and what about federal officers?

I'd only be guessing, because I've never researched opinions and rulings on obstruction, hindering, and similar terms. But sensibly, I'd guess that ANYTHING, any act that either hinders a cop or fireman from their task at hand, by someone that is not part of and has no business in participating in that scene, or MIGHT distract them, thereby causing them to be injured due to attention diverted to address the new element, like when auditors arrive at a scene and a cop orders them to "step back", and they do not comply, thereby resulting in the cop now being distracted from his investigation, is hindering/obstruction.

Like the time that SideShow Sean decided to interject himself into the traffic stop that he later wrote an apology for doing.

I'd have to imagine that would be a textbook example of PASSIVE hindering/obstruction. His presence and proximity interfering with the officer's performance and possibly jeopardizing his safety due to direct distraction and now having to address and deal with the interjection.

 

[Nukedaddy]

That interpretation would seem to preclude the lawful exercise of first amendment rights. If the mere presence of a videographer “might” distract an officer would constitute hindering or obstruction, then there must be some definition that will lawfully allow citizen /journalist oversight of government operations. What is not watched is not controlled. What cannot be counted cannot be managed. And in evidence, what you can’t prove didn’t happen.