But this element [hamper/impede] does not require that the defendant cause the officers to fail in their duties, but only that, by acting, the defendant disrupted their performance of them.
State v. Brown
Second District Appellate Court
Montgomery County, Ohio
April 18, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Brown reaffirms that a verbal disruption to a law enforcement can rise to the criminal act of Obstructing Official Business. The case also examines that a ‘substantial stoppage’ has no minimal time limit.
Background
On March 5, 2024, the State filed criminal complaints in the Dayton Municipal Court charging Mr. Ronnie Brown with one second-degree-misdemeanor count of obstructing official business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A), and one second-degree-misdemeanor count of resisting arrest in violation of O.R.C. §2921.33(A). Mr. Brown was also cited for a minor- misdemeanor violation of O.R.C. §4511.50, which governs when and how pedestrians may walk along roadways. Mr. Brown pled not guilty to all three charges, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. At trial, the State presented two body camera videos that depicted Mr. Brown’s interactions with Dayton police Officers Anthony Gross and Tristen Bradley on the afternoon of March 4, 2024. The State also had the officers testify regarding their interactions with Mr. Brown.
Response to Juveniles Fighting
The testimony and video evidence established that, on the day and time in question, Ofc. Gross was driving on South Hedges Street in Dayton, Ohio, on the report of a fight that broke out between several juveniles. While driving, Ofc. Gross spotted four juveniles walking on South Hedges Street and observed that one of the juveniles was wearing a pink sweatshirt that matched the description of a sweatshirt worn by one of the juveniles involved in the reported fight. After that observation, Ofc. Gross parked his police cruiser along the curb in front of 244 South Hedges Street and detained the juveniles for questioning. Ofc. Bradley and Ofc. Steven Quigney assisted at the scene and parked their police cruisers in the same area. There is no dispute that 244 South Hedges Street was Mr. Brown’s residence and that the officers’ police cruisers were blocking Mr. Brown’s driveway.
While Dayton Police Officers Anthony Gross and Tristen Bradley were investigating a report of teenagers fighting Mr. Brown injected himself into the incident by demanding the officers move their cruisers from blocking his driveway at 244 South Hedges. Mr. Brown repeatedly verbally disrupted the officers. Were his verbal disruptions enough to sustain a criminal charge of Obstructing Official Business?
Ofc. Gross and Ofc. Bradley stayed at the scene with the four juvenile suspects while Ofc. Quigney went to look for the victim of the reported fight. Ofc. Gross placed the juvenile wearing the pink sweatshirt in the backseat of his police cruiser and questioned him. During that time, Ofc. Bradley conducted pat down searches on the other three juveniles and briefly asked them a few questions. After Ofc. Gross finished questioning the juvenile in the police cruiser, he rejoined Ofc. Bradley and began questioning the other three juveniles. As Ofc. Gross was questioning the three juveniles, a black pickup truck parked across the street from where the officers and juveniles were standing. Mr. Brown exited the pickup truck and approached Ofc. Gross while recording the encounter with his cellphone.
Mr. Brown Refuses Repeated Lawful Orders
As Mr. Brown approached, Ofc. Gross asked him: “Are you one of [the juvenile’s] dads? Are you with them?” Mr. Brown answered: “No.” Ofc. Gross thereafter said in a courteous tone: “Alright, you got to stand over on the sidewalk then if you are not a part of this. You are more than welcome to record, but you just have to stand on the sidewalk.” In response, Mr. Brown immediately said: “No, actually I don’t.” Ofc. Gross then said: “Actually, you do.” Mr. Brown then raised his voice slightly and retorted: “Actually, I don’t.”
I don’t care
Ofc. Gross thereafter explained to Mr. Brown that he was “investigating a fight.” Mr. Brown responded: “I don’t care.” Ofc. Gross then said: “You should care.” Mr. Brown responded: “No, you should care. Y’all parked in front of my house.” Ofc. Gross thereafter said: “Well, if you ask me to move, I can move.” Mr. Brown, however, continued talking over Ofc. Gross. When Ofc. Gross continued to explain that he was investigating a crime, Mr. Brown responded: “Nah . . . when I walked up, you gave me orders.” Ofc. Gross then explained that he had thought that Mr. Brown was the father of one of the juveniles since he walked over to them. Mr. Brown, who was still agitated, told Ofc. Gross that he had made a mistake in that regard, and that he had walked up to Ofc. Gross because he wanted to know why there were officers parked in front of his house.
Mr. Brown Refuses Repeated Requests to be Reasonable
When Mr. Brown initially refused to obey Ofc. Gross’s order to stand on the sidewalk, Ofc. Bradley left his post with the juveniles and stood beside Ofc. Gross while Mr. Brown continued to engage with him. After Mr. Brown explained that he had walked up to Ofc. Gross to find out why the officers were parked in front of his house, Ofc. Bradley stepped in and attempted to de-escalate the situation. Ofc. Bradley said: “Sir, can I talk to you? I can—we can be reasonable. Let me talk—yeah—let me talk to you. We can be reasonable. We can be reasonable.”
Ofc. Bradley tried to direct Mr. Brown away from Ofc. Gross, but Mr. Brown continued to engage with Ofc. Gross by asking him for his name and badge number, which Ofc. Gross provided. Mr. Brown also asked for Ofc. Gross’s supervisor and then proceeded to talk over Ofc. Bradley, who continually asked Mr. Brown “to be reasonable.” Ofc. Bradley continued his efforts to de-escalate the situation and to get Mr. Brown out of the street and away from Ofc. Gross and the juveniles. While motioning across the street, Ofc. Bradley told Mr. Brown: “Hey, sir, let’s just be reasonable. You come over here and talk to me.” In response, Mr. Brown said: “No, (indiscernible) the police surrounded my house (indiscernible).” Ofc. Bradley responded: “Sir, I will explain the whole thing. Come over here. Come over here and talk to me.” Mr. Brown, however, continued to talk over Ofc. Bradley and once again said: “The police surrounded my house.” Ofc. Bradley then said: “Sir, come over here and talk to me and I’ll explain what’s going on, okay.” Mr. Brown then began to walk with Ofc. Bradley for a moment and said: “Yeah, but he [Ofc. Gross] better watch his tone.” Thereafter, Mr. Brown once again said that he wanted Ofc. Gross’s supervisor and yelled to Ofc. Gross: “Yeah, while you’re doing your investigation, get your supervisor.”
I don’t have business with y’all … you need to move this car. You’re blocking my driveway
Ofc. Bradley told Mr. Brown that he would get Mr. Brown the contact information he requested and once again asked Mr. Brown to “come on over here and talk to me.” Mr. Brown, however, said: “But I don’t need to talk. I don’t want to talk. I don’t have business with y’all.” Mr. Brown then walked back in the direction of Ofc. Gross, who was still speaking with the three juvenile suspects at the front of his police cruiser. While approaching Ofc. Gross, Mr. Brown said: “You need to move this. Matter fact, check this out, you need to move this car. You’re blocking my driveway.”
Threat of Arrest
As soon as Mr. Brown moved back toward Ofc. Gross, Ofc. Bradley placed his hand on the side of Mr. Brown’s arm and guided him to the sidewalk across the street while saying: “If you walk up on him one more time . . .” Ofc. Bradley was unable to finish his sentence because Mr. Brown angrily interrupted him and said: “Did you just put your hand on me?” Ofc. Bradley replied: “Yes. If you walk up on him one more time like that while we are investigating, you’re going to go in handcuffs.” In response, Mr. Brown yelled: “Can you get your supervisor?” Ofc. Bradley answered, “yes I will,” and once again ordered Mr. Brown to “stand over here on the sidewalk.” Mr. Brown then yelled: “No. I’m going to go to my house.”
Mr. Brown is Arrested
Officer Bradley replied: “Ok, then go to your house.” Mr. Brown, however, said: “No. Get your supervisor.” As Mr. Brown said this, he once again walked away from the sidewalk and moved toward Ofc. Gross and the three juveniles. At that point, Ofc. Bradley grabbed Mr. Brown, placed him in handcuffs with Ofc. Gross’s assistance, and arrested him for obstructing official business.
Video Evidence
After presenting the video evidence and the officers’ testimony, the State rested its case. Mr. Brown then raised a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal of the charges. The trial court denied the motion, and Mr. Brown thereafter testified in his defense. As part of his defense, Mr. Brown presented two still-shot photographs that were taken from the officers’ body camera videos. The photographs showed where the officers’ police cruisers had been parked in relation to Mr. Brown’s driveway.
Mr. Brown is Found Guilty of Obstructing Official Business
After hearing the parties’ closing arguments and after considering all the evidence presented at trial, the trial court found Mr. Brown not guilty of resisting arrest and violating O.R.C. §4511.50, but guilty of obstructing official business. The trial court thereafter sentenced Mr. Brown to 90 days in jail and 18 months of basic, supervised probation. In addition, the trial court ordered Mr. Brown to complete an anger management course and to pay a $150 fine and court costs.
Appeal
Mr. Brown now appeals from his conviction and raises two assignments of error for review. Because Mr. Brown’s assignments of error are interrelated, we will address them together.
Obstructing Official Business
As previously discussed, Mr. Brown is challenging the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence underlying his conviction for obstructing official business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A). That statute provides: “No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.” O.R.C. 2921.31(A). “ ‘§R.C. 2921.31(A) thus includes five essential elements: (1) an act by the defendant, (2) done with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official, (3) that actually hampers or impedes a public official, (4) while the official is acting in the performance of a lawful duty, and (5) the defendant so acts without privilege.’ ” State v. Body, 2018-Ohio-3395, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Kates, 2006-Ohio-6779, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.).
[T]he totality of the defendant’s conduct should be considered, as opposed to viewing each act in isolation
“To be guilty of the offense of obstructing official business, an individual must commit an overt act done with an intent to obstruct a public official, such as a police officer, and the act must succeed in actually hampering or impeding that officer.” State v. Gibson, 2019-Ohio-1022, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Davis, 2017-Ohio-5613, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.). Therefore, “ ‘ “[t]he proper focus in a prosecution for obstructing official business is on the defendant’s conduct, verbal or physical, and its effect on the public official’s ability to perform the official’s lawful duties.” ’ ” Id., quoting State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-1128, ¶ 55 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Wellman, 2007-Ohio-2953 “ ‘ “Where the overall pattern of behavior is one of resistance, . . . officers may consider the totality of the events and need not point to a single act that rises to the level of obstruction.’ ” Body at ¶ 22, quoting Roseborough v. City of Trotwood, 2007 WL 3402880, *5 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2007), quoting Lyons v. City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565, 574 (6th Cir. 2005). In other words, “[T]he totality of the defendant’s conduct should be considered, as opposed to viewing each act in isolation.” State v. Easterling, 2019-Ohio-2470, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), citing Body at ¶ 22.
Generally, an individual can be found guilty of obstructing official business when he persists in performing a specific act [after] a police officer has told him to stop.
“‘Generally, an individual can be found guilty of obstructing official business when he persists in performing a specific act [after] a police officer has told him to stop.’ ” Gibson at ¶ 19, quoting City of Girard v. Oakman, 2018-Ohio-1212, ¶ 52 (11th Dist.). However, in doing so, the defendant must have “actually hampered or impeded the police in performing their lawful duties.” State v. Gillam, 2019-Ohio-808, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.), citing McCoy at ¶ 16. The hamper/impede element “ ‘does not require that [the defendant] cause the officers to fail in their duties, but only that, by acting, [the defendant] disrupted their performance of them.’ ” State v. Terry, 2016-Ohio-3484, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.), quoting McCoy at ¶ 16. We have explained that “[b]efore it can be concluded that an officer was hampered or impeded, ‘there must be some “substantial stoppage” of the officers’ progress.’ ” Gillam at ¶ 19, quoting Wellman at ¶ 17. There is, however, “no ‘finite period of time [that] constitutes a “substantial stoppage,” . . . If the record demonstrates that the defendant’s act hampered or impeded the officer in the performance of his duties, the evidence supports the conviction.’ ” Id., quoting Wellman at ¶ 18.
On appeal, this court found that, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that the appellant’s actions hampered or impeded the officer from performing his lawful duties. Id. ¶ 25-27. Specifically, we found that, for officer safety purposes, the officer had to leave his post at the traffic stop to investigate why the appellant had arrived at the scene. Id. at ¶ 27.
[W]e concluded that the appellant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence
We also found that when the officer made contact with the appellant, the appellant had delayed the officer’s ability to return to help with the traffic stop by repeatedly interrupting him, questioning his authority, and asking him for his name, badge number, and supervisor’s contact information. We further found that the appellant’s actions were not privileged and were conducted in a manner that indicated the appellant acted with the purpose to obstruct or delay the officer in the performance of his duties. Id. at ¶ 24 and ¶ 29. In light of these findings, we concluded that the appellant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at ¶ 32.
Note: Mr. Brown also appealed that his conviction was against the manifest weight of evidence. That appeal is not evaluated in this article, though the Second District Appellate Court also overruled that second appeal.
Mr. Brown’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Brown, 2025 – Ohio – 1391.
State v. Brown, 2025 – Ohio – 1391 was issued by the Second District Appellate Court on April 18, 2025 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Champaign, Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami and Montgomery.
Lessons Learned:
- Can a Verbal Disruption be Violative of Obstructing Official Business? – O.R.C. §2921.31(A). That statute provides: “No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.”. However, can a verbal disruption constitute a violation of the statute? On June 17, 2016 the Second District Appellate Court held “But this element [hamper/impede] does not require that the defendant cause the officers to fail in their duties, but only that, by acting, the defendant disrupted their performance of them.”. State v. Terry, 2016 – Ohio – 3464. In this case Mr. Brown repeatedly interrupted the officers and therefore these disruptions led to his lawful arrest and conviction for Obstructing Official Business.
- How Long of a Disruption is Required to Lawfully Charge a Suspect with Obstructing Official Business? On June 15, 2007 the First District Appellate Court held “But this court has also stated that “[w]e do not hold that any finite period of time constitutes a ‘substantial stoppage,’ be the delay occasioned by the interference thirty seconds or two minutes.”If the record demonstrates that the defendant’s act hampered or impeded the officer in the performance of his duties, the evidence supports the conviction.” State v. Wellman, 2007-Ohio-2953. The legal standard is ‘substantial stoppage’ and that stoppage has no minimum or maximum amount of time.
- Demanding a Supervisor – During Mr. Brown’s repeated disruptions he yelled “Can you get your supervisor?”. If a citizen demands to talk to a supervisor, there is no statutory or case law requirement for a law enforcement officer to request a supervisor. There may be a department rule/policy for a supervisor to be requested but there is no lawful requirement for law enforcement to request a supervisor.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Both Dayton Police Officers Anthony Gross and Tristen Bradley should be highly commended for their substantive patience and legal acumen. Both officers attempted to de-escalate Mr. Brown. But de-escalation requires TWO PEOPLE and this case, like SO many others, involved only one person – the officer – wanting to de-escalate. Well done Officer Gross, Officer Bradley and the Dayton City Attorney’s Office!
Does your agency train on Obstructing Official Business?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!