§852-1 Refusal to provide ingress or
egress. (a) Whenever ingress to or egress from any public or private
place is obstructed by any person or persons in such manner as not to leave a
free passageway for persons and vehicles lawfully seeking to enter or leave
such place, any law enforcement officer shall direct such person or persons to
move so as to provide and maintain a free and unobstructed passageway for
persons and vehicles lawfully going into or out of such place. It shall be
unlawful for any person to refuse or wilfully fail to move as directed by such
officer.
(b) As used in this section, "law
enforcement officer" means any public servant, whether employed by the
State or county, vested by law with a duty to maintain public order, to make
arrests for offenses, or to enforce the criminal laws, whether the duty extends
to all offenses or is limited to a specific class of offenses. [L Sp 1949, c 9,
§1; RL 1955, §297-1; HRS §754-1; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 144,
§1]
Case Notes
As enforcement of this section by the State focused on the
location of the picketers and not on the picketing conduct itself, section not
preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. 89 H. 27 (App.), 968 P.2d 194
(1998).
As section does not prohibit picketing or the communication
of messages altogether, is specifically aimed at conduct causing an obstruction
of ingress to or egress from public or private places, and individuals may
continue to exercise rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and article I, §4
of the Hawaii constitution as long as they do not do so in a manner prohibited
by this section, section not unconstitutional. 89 H. 27 (App.), 968 P.2d 194
(1998).
Section not unconstitutionally vague as: (1) a person of
ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to know that it is
unlawful to refuse or wilfully fail to move as directed by an officer; (2)
person may then choose between the lawful and unlawful conduct; and (3) section
provides sufficiently explicit standards for those who apply it. 89 H. 27
(App.), 968 P.2d 194 (1998).
Defendant did not have a constitutional right to a jury trial
for a violation of this section, refusal to provide ingress or egress while
walking a labor picket line, where the maximum punishment was thirty days in
jail or a $200 fine, or both, and violation was thus a petty misdemeanor under
§701-107(4). 110 H. 139 (App.), 129 P.3d 1167 (2006).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case:
State v. Guzman, 968 P.2d 194 (Haw. App. 1998).
State v. Guzman, 968 P.2d 194 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 78× “Vas-eoneellos (Vasconcellos) (collectively referred to herein as Defendants), when they were arrested while picketing on May 31,1996 and subsequently charged with violating HRS § 852-1. However, we further hold that on remand of this ease for trial, Defendants may, if they so…”
State v. Jim, 97 P.3d 395 (Haw. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “1998), this court stated, We cannot agree with Defendants’ contention that HRS § 852-1 [which prohibited the obstruction of “ingress to or egress from any public or private place”] must be struck down on the basis that it chills free expression.”
State v. Teale., 390 P.3d 1238 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2001) (setting forth offense of obstructing government operations); HRS § 852-1 (Supp. 2002) (setting forth offense of refusal to provide ingress or egress).”
State v. Kauhane, 436 P.3d 1192 (Haw. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “1998) (citing Cox in holding that HRS § 852-1 (1993), regarding "Refusal to provide ingress or egress", did not need to be struck down for chilling free expression, where individuals picketing at the entrance of a hospital were arrested for refusing to provide ingress and…”
State v. Emerson, 129 P.3d 1167 (Haw. App. 2006).
“2004) provides: Whenever ingress to or egress from any public or private place is obstructed by any person or persons in such manner as not to leave a free passageway for persons and vehicles lawfully seeking to enter or leave such place, any law enforcement officer shall direct…”
State v. Kaeo., 497 P.3d 120 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “In this case, the State did initially avail itself of other charging options in the Hawai#i Penal Code, and charged, inter alia, Refusal to Provide Ingress or Egress, in violation of HRS § 852-1 (2014) in Count 1. HRS § 852-1, proscribes conduct of obstructing ingress to and/or…”
State v. Zowail., 465 P.3d 689 (Haw. 2020).
“” For example, Hawai #i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 852-1 requires persons to leave “ingress to or egress from any public or private (continued.”
Raquinio v. Kohanaiki Cmty. Ass'n (D. Haw. 2021).
“§ 852-1 , a criminal statute which requires a person to comply with a direction from law enforcement to cease obstructing ingress or egress to a public or private place when that person is blocking the passageway to that public or private place, [id.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 852-1(a) — 1 case
State v. Emerson, 129 P.3d 1167 (Haw. App. 2006).
“2004) provides: Whenever ingress to or egress from any public or private place is obstructed by any person or persons in such manner as not to leave a free passageway for persons and vehicles lawfully seeking to enter or leave such place, any law enforcement officer shall direct…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.