You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT USE ANY PHYSICAL FORCE IN REFUSING TO COOPERATE AFTER...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT USE ANY PHYSICAL FORCE IN REFUSING TO COOPERATE AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP; OBSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of obstructing governmental administration second degree, determined there was no evidence the defendant used physical force. Passive refusal to cooperate after a traffic stop is not enough:

… [T]he defendant was argumentative throughout the traffic stop and arrest-booking process, repeatedly refused to answer the officers’ questions, and refused to participate physically in any way in the arrest-booking process, including refusing to stand for a photograph, to provide his fingerprints, or to sign a Miranda form … . The People concede that the defendant did not physically resist the officers, but argue that his conduct constituted physical interference because he refused to cooperate physically in the arrest-booking process. However, neither the defendant’s conduct during the traffic stop nor his conduct during the arrest-booking process constituted a knowing, physical interference with, and disruption of, the official function being performed by the officers. The defendant did not struggle, physically resist, or do anything to interfere with the officers, and he did not intrude into, or get in the way of, any ongoing police activity … . The defendant’s passive unwillingness to cooperate with the officers during the traffic stop and arrest-booking process lacked the requisite intentional physical component … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03851, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

You might also like
DISMISSAL OF INTENTIONAL TORT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED SUBSEQUENT ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, NO NEGLIGENT ASSAULT IN NEW YORK.
VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Client’s Motion to Quash Attorney’s Charging Lien Properly Granted Without a Hearing/No “Conflicting Facts” Concerning Whether the Attorney Was Discharged Was For Cause
BANK DID NOT NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH IN THE CPLR 3408 MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, CERTAIN SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED.
Cause of Action Based Upon a Legal Theory Which Could Have Been Raised in a Prior Action Stemming from the Same Events Precluded by the Doctrine of Res Judicata
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
LYFT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A LYFT DRIVER; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON THE ASSURANCES OF SAFETY ON LYFT’S WEBSITE (SECOND DEPT).
Children’s Remaining in Foster Care Until Father’s Release from Prison Was Not a Sufficient Plan for the Children’s Future, Permanent Neglect Finding Proper

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A FRYE HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA-RELATED... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (LEVEL TWO TO ONE) IN THIS CHILD...