Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 751 (2026)

Obstructing government administration

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  A person is guilty of obstructing government administration if the person intentionally interferes by force, violence or intimidation or by any physical act with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function.  
[PL 2003, c. 657, §5 (AMD).]
2.  This section does not apply to:  
A. Refusal by a person to submit to an arrest or detention;   [PL 2021, c. 568, §1 (AMD).]
B. Escape by a person from official custody, as defined in section 755; or   [PL 2021, c. 568, §1 (AMD).]
C. Intentional interference by a person under Title 21‑A, section 674, subsection 2, paragraph E.   [PL 2021, c. 568, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 2021, c. 568, §1 (AMD).]
3.  Obstructing government administration is a Class D crime.  
[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1997, c. 351, §2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 657, §5 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 568, §1 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: State v. Janisczak, 579 A.2d 736 (Me. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Janisczak, 579 A.2d 736 (Me. 1990). · cites it 10× “) for obstructing government administration in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751 (1983). Janisczak argues that the evidence of his actions presented at trial was insufficient to sustain this conviction because his actions deserve constitutional protection under both the First…”
State v. Boilard, 488 A.2d 1380 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 207 (1983), and of obstructing government administration, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751 (1983), both Class D crimes.”
State v. Bushey, 425 A.2d 1343 (Me. 1981). · cites it 4× “Niles, was convicted of obstructing government administration, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751(1). 2 Both Defendants appeal to this Court, raising the issues of (1) whether the Defendants were unlawfully seized, thereby requiring suppression of subsequently obtained evidence; and (2)…”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “§ 211(1), 1252(4) (2018), and obstructing government administration (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 751(1) (2018). A judgment of acquittal was entered by the court as to reckless conduct after the jury found Ouellette not guilty.”
State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “Storer was also charged with obstructing government administration in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751 (1983). 4 I. The Suppression of Evidence Raising their challenge to the conduct of the police and wardens only under the United States Constitution, defendants moved to…”
State of Maine v. Tracy Dorweiler, 2016 ME 73 (Me. 2016). “17-A M.R.S. § 751 — B(l). None of these scenarios fits the facts of this case; refusal to stop on request is most clearly applicable to a police chase'or situations in which a person drives away from a vehicle stop.”
State of Maine v. Ali M. Mahmoud, 2016 ME 135 (Me. 2016). “PROCEDURAL HISTORY [¶ 6] In August 2014, Mahmoud was charged by complaint with one count of refusing to submit to arrest (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 751—B(1)(B). (2015), and one count of assault (Class D), ,17-A M.”
State v. Matson, 818 A.2d 213 (Me. 2003). · cites it 5× “[¶ 1] Sharon Matson appeals from a judgment of conviction of obstructing government administration (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751 (Supp.2002), and violating a condition of release (Class E), 15 M.”
State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 140 (Me. 2010). “The elements of the crime described in the charging instrument and of which Murphy was convicted are unchanged as between 17-A M.R.S. § 751—A(1)(B) and 17-A M.R.S.”
State v. Judkins, 440 A.2d 355 (Me. 1982). · cites it 3× “After a warning to move, Officer Roach arrested the Defendant for interfering with government administration in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751. In preparing to conduct a pat-down search of the Defendant, Officer Roach placed the front of the Defendant’s body against the side…”
State v. Daley, 411 A.2d 410 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “See 1975 Comments to 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 751, 755. 7 . 17-A M.R.S.”
Creamer v. Sceviour, 652 A.2d 110 (Me. 1995). “Creamer was arrested for obstructing government administration pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751(1) (1983), but the charge was eventually dismissed.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 751(1) — 10 cases
State v. Janisczak, 579 A.2d 736 (Me. 1990). “) for obstructing government administration in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751 (1983). Janisczak argues that the evidence of his actions presented at trial was insufficient to sustain this conviction because his actions deserve constitutional protection under both the First…”
State of Maine v. Bruce Ouellette, 2019 ME 75 (Me. 2019). “§ 211(1), 1252(4) (2018), and obstructing government administration (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 751(1) (2018). A judgment of acquittal was entered by the court as to reckless conduct after the jury found Ouellette not guilty.”
State v. Bushey, 425 A.2d 1343 (Me. 1981). “Niles, was convicted of obstructing government administration, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751(1). 2 Both Defendants appeal to this Court, raising the issues of (1) whether the Defendants were unlawfully seized, thereby requiring suppression of subsequently obtained evidence; and (2)…”
Creamer v. Sceviour, 652 A.2d 110 (Me. 1995). “Creamer was arrested for obstructing government administration pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751(1) (1983), but the charge was eventually dismissed.”
State v. Matson, 818 A.2d 213 (Me. 2003). “[¶ 1] Sharon Matson appeals from a judgment of conviction of obstructing government administration (Class D), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751 (Supp.2002), and violating a condition of release (Class E), 15 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 751(2)(A) — 1 case
State v. Bushey, 425 A.2d 1343 (Me. 1981). “Niles, was convicted of obstructing government administration, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 751(1). 2 Both Defendants appeal to this Court, raising the issues of (1) whether the Defendants were unlawfully seized, thereby requiring suppression of subsequently obtained evidence; and (2)…”
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.