State v. Krawsky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that section 609.50 may punish verbal or nonverbal conduct that obstructs or interferes with police officer’s duties
• concluding that a previous version of statute prohibited conduct that included fighting words, which could have the effect of physically obstructing or interfering with a police officer’s performance of their duties
• concluding that statute prohibiting interference with peace officer performing duties was not overly broad because the statutory prohibition was limited to conduct obstructing or interfering with police officer performing duties and required that actor intend to obstruct or interfere
• stating that the language of the obstruction-of-legal-process “statute is directed solely at physical acts” and “forbids intentional physical obstruction or interference with a police officer in the performance of his official duties”
• stating “[p]ersons of common intelligence need not guess at whether their conduct violates” a statute that made it a crime to “intentionally obstruct[ ], hinder| ], or prevent[ ] the lawful execution of any legal process, ... or [to] interfere[ ] with a peace officer”
• where “obstructs,” “hinders,” “prevents,” and “interferes” could be interpreted to apply only to physical acts substantially frustrating or hindering an officer’s performance of his duties no overbreadth problem

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).