Community Care-taking?
The crime of obstructing a police officer is designed to punish people who hinder a criminal investigation or impede the activity of law enforcement personnel as they try to carry out their duties. But sometimes, this crime is used as a “catch-all” charge by police when an individual doesn’t obey. And First Amendment Rights are trampled upon.
A Washington Court of Appeals decision released earlier this month focuses on the legality of the charge of obstructing a police officer. State of Washington vs. Ronald Steen involves a man challenging his conviction of obstructing a police officer.
The incident in question occurred in July of 2008, when two sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to a property in Puyallup in response to a possible disturbance involving two males and one female. The deputies found a distraught woman upon arrival and proceeded to search portions of the property for other people. The woman told them that they should search a travel trailer that was on the property.
The deputies knocked loudly on the locked door on two different occasions and also identified themselves as police. Believing someone may be in danger inside, they announced that they were going to conduct a building search. They found an open window, and one of the deputies crawled inside and opened the door for the other. At that point, Ronald Steen emerged from the back of the trailer and said he had been sleeping and had not heard the knocking.
The deputies handcuffed him and put him in their squad car. They repeatedly asked Steen his name and birthdate, but he did not respond. About 45 minutes later, they determined who he was and placed him under arrest on an outstanding warrant. Steen was later convicted of obstructing a police officer, but he appealed his conviction.
The appeals court denied his appeal, noting that Steen’s failure to open the trailer door and subsequent unresponsiveness to the deputies’ questions justified the obstruction charge. Regarding Steen’s claim that he didn’t hear the deputies knocking, the court viewed the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State” and sided with the deputies. Steen also insisted that he had the “right to remain silent” and shouldn’t have been penalized for invoking that right, but the court determined that withholding his name and birthdate did not constitute a refusal to volunteer “incriminating” information (even though he did have an outstanding warrant) and therefore his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. The Court distinguished State v. Easter, 130 Wn. 2d 228 (1996), a DUI Vehicular Assault case in which remaining silent was not the substantive crime. In an obstruction case the silence is the substance of the crime itself and not just a supportive incriminating statement.
Finally, in response to Steen’s assertion that the First Amendment protected his right to remain silent, the court ruled that the cases cited by Steen’s counsel did not support that position; and that the First Amendment protects “freedom of speech,” not the “freedom not to speak.”
In reading this decision, it appears that law enforcement has been given quite a bit of leeway when deciding to charge suspects with obstruction and to storm into peoples private homes. (We should also note that this decision was split, with one of the three justices dissenting.) It also implies that if you are asked to give identifying information to police in connection with a crime, you are legally obliged to do so or face criminal prosecution on obstruction charges – and that it is impossible to be sleeping and not hear law enforcement personnel knocking at your door. Does this case represent another small erosion into the rights of the individual?
Rule of Steen – Remaining silent can be grounds for the crime of Obstruction of Law Enforcement.
State v. Ronald Steen, Washington State Court of Appeals – Division II, No. 39635-1, November 09, 2011.