Colorado § 18-8-104 - Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.

§ 18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.

(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or crash.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(1.5) A person shall not be charged with the offense described in subsection (1) of this section because the person remained silent or because the person stated a verbal opposition to an order by a government official.

(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he or she was acting under color of his or her official authority. A peace officer acts "under color of his or her official authority" if, in the regular course of assigned duties, he or she makes a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.

(2.5) If a person is alleged to have committed the offense described in subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) of this section by using or threatening to use an unmanned aircraft system as an obstacle, the offense does not apply if the person who operates the unmanned aircraft system:

(a) Obtains permission to operate the unmanned aircraft system from a law enforcement agency or other entity that is coordinating the response of peace officers, firefighters, emergency medical service providers, rescue specialists, or volunteers to an emergency or crash;

(b) Continues to communicate with such entity during the operation of the unmanned aircraft system; and

(c) Complies immediately with any instructions from the entity concerning the operation of the unmanned aircraft system.

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Emergency medical service provider" means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) "Obstacle" includes an unmanned aircraft system.

(c) "Rescue specialist" means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 454, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-8-104. L. 77: (1) amended, p. 965, § 38, effective July 1. L. 83: (3) repealed, p. 671, § 23, effective July 1. L. 90: (1) amended, p. 1611, § 2, effective July 1. L. 96: (1) and (4) amended, p. 1477, § 41, effective June 1; (1)(a) and (4) amended and (5) added, p. 956, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2012: (2) amended, (HB 12-1310), ch. 268, p. 1398, § 15, effective June 7. L. 2018: (2.5) and (5)(c) added and (5)(b) amended, (HB 18-1314), ch. 385, p. 2309, § 2, effective August 8. L. 2021: (1.5) added, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3194, § 272, effective March 1, 2022. L. 2026: (1)(a) and (2.5)(a) amended, (HB 26-1237), ch. 117, p. 465, § 11, effective August 12.

Editor's note: Amendments to subsections (1) and (4) in House Bill 96-208 and Senate Bill 96-68 were harmonized.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in HB 18-1314, see section 1 of chapter 385, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.

ANNOTATION

Since the first amendment protects the right to criticize police, it protects the right to remain in the area to be able to criticize the observable police conduct. Jordan v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, 73 F.4th 1162 (10th Cir. 2023).

Because arrestee's criticism of police was constitutionally protected by the first amendment, there was no probable cause to arrest him. Jordan v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, 73 F.4th 1162 (10th Cir. 2023).

Arrestee's first amendment rights were clearly established at the time of his arrest such that there was no arguable probable cause to arrest him for criticizing the police. Jordan v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, 73 F.4th 1162 (10th Cir. 2023).

Grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity claims improper where criticism directed at police is protected by the first amendment and cannot justify adverse police action. The first amendment does not protect only quiet and respectful behavior toward police; it protects loud criticism that may annoy or distract the officer. Jordan v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, 73 F.4th 1162 (10th Cir. 2023).

A violation of subsection (1)(a) is punishable as a class 2 misdemeanor and supports only the use of minimal force by police under the fourth amendment. Jordan v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, 73 F.4th 1162 (10th Cir. 2023).

Interference with peace officer is a matter of both local and statewide concern. City & County of Denver v. Howard, 622 P.2d 568 (Colo. 1981).

And Denver ordinance does not conflict with section. Denver revised municipal code 846.1-2 (interfering with a police officer) does not conflict with this section. City & County of Denver v. Howard, 622 P.2d 568 (Colo. 1981).

If violation of municipal ordinance may result in fine or imprisonment, then the ordinance is penal in nature within the meaning of this section. People v. Shockley, 41 Colo. App. 515, 591 P.2d 589 (1978).

Term "enforcement" as used in subsection (1) encompasses those activities which a peace officer is under a duty to perform in order to give effect to a penal law. People v. Shockley, 41 Colo. App. 515, 591 P.2d 589 (1978).

Obstruction of booking process is violation of this section. People v. Shockley, 41 Colo. App. 515, 591 P.2d 589 (1978).

While mere verbal opposition alone may not suffice to merit a conclusion of interference or obstruction, a combination of statements and acts, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, can form the crime of obstruction. Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005); People in Interest of K.D.W., 2020 COA 110, 471 P.3d 1276.

Obstruction of a peace officer under this section is a lesser included offense of second degree assault under § 18-3-203 (1)(c) and (1)(f) since all of the elements contained in the definition of obstruction of a peace officer would be necessarily established by the proof of the elements of second degree assault under § 18-3-203 (1)(c). People v. Stafford, 890 P.2d 244 (Colo. App. 1994).

Trial court's failure to instruct the jury that obstruction of a peace officer under this section was a lesser included offense of second degree assault under § 18-3-203 (1)(c) was error requiring a new trial where defendant acknowledged the officers sustained bodily injury but there was no admission that he intended to act in a manner that would cause the injury. People v. Stafford, 890 P.2d 244 (Colo. App. 1994).

Trial court's failure to instruct the jury that obstruction of a peace officer under this section was a lesser included offense of second degree assault under § 18-3-203 (1)(f) was error requiring a new trial where defendant testified that the only action he volitionally took after the first officer entered the cell was to raise his arms. People v. Stafford, 890 P.2d 244 (Colo. App. 1994).

Self-defense is an available defense against a charge under this section when a defendant reasonably believes that unreasonable or excessive force is being used by a peace officer. People v. Barrus, 232 P.3d 264 (Colo. App. 2009).

Defendant may not respond to an unreasonable search or seizure by a threat of violence against the officer and then rely on the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence pertaining to the criminal act of obstructing a peace officer and resisting arrest. People v. Brown, 217 P.3d 1252 (Colo. 2009).

The unit of prosecution for obstruction is defined in terms of discrete volitional acts of obstruction that interfere with government operations. The people were not required to prove that defendant resisted or obstructed a particular officer, just that the defendant resisted or obstructed any officer. People v. Snider, 2021 COA 19, 491 P.3d 423.

The use of a takedown maneuver to slam to the ground an arrestee who poses no immediate threat to an officer or others based on minimal resistance to arrest is unreasonable and constitutes excessive force under the fourth amendment. Surat v. Klamser, 52 F.4th 1261 (10th Cir. 2022); Jordan v. Adams County Sheriff's Office, 73 F.4th 1162 (10th Cir. 2023).

Applied in United States v. Baldwin, 745 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2014); Holdridge v. Blank, 255 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (D. Colo. 2017).