§
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties;
(3) interferes with or obstructs a firefighter while the firefighter is engaged in the performance of official duties;
(4) interferes with or obstructs a member of an ambulance service personnel crew, as defined in section 144E.001, subdivision 3a, who is providing, or attempting to provide, emergency care; or
(5) by force or threat of force endeavors to obstruct any employee of the Department of Revenue, Department of Public Safety Driver and Vehicle Services Division, a driver's license agent appointed under section 171.061, or a deputy registrar appointed under section 168.33 while the employee is lawfully engaged in the performance of official duties for the purpose of deterring or interfering with the performance of those duties.
§
Subd. 2.Penalty.
A person convicted of violating subdivision 1 may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if (i) the person knew or had reason to know that the act created a risk of death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; or (ii) the act caused death, substantial bodily harm, or serious property damage; to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both;
(2) if the act was accompanied by force or violence or the threat thereof, and is not otherwise covered by clause (1), to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; or
(3) in other cases, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
96
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2002).
State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 14× “Appellant was charged with obstruction of legal process with force or violence, a gross misdemeanor, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.50 , subd. 2(2) (2000); and disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, in violation of Minn.”
State v. Tomlin, 622 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 22× “Kevin Lee Tomlin, a city of Duluth police officer, was convicted of obstruction of *547 legal process under Minn.Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1(2) (1996). 1 Tomlin lied to police to cover up for his Mends who were involved in a hit-and-run accident.”
Brian Thomas Hoyland v. Shawn McMenomy, 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Officers proceeded to his doorway where Hoyland was taken into custody and eventually charged with obstructing legal process pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.50 , a charge later dismissed for lack of probable cause.”
State v. Pederson, 840 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 23× “Appellant challenges her gross-misdemeanor convictions of assault on a peace officer and obstructing legal process, arguing that the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to prove that she intended to inflict, or attempt to inflict, bodily harm on the officer and that her…”
State v. Krawsky, 426 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 12× “The issue on this appeal is whether Minn. Stat. § 609.50 (1986), which makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally interfere with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties, is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague on its face.”
State v. Engholm, 290 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 10× “The following issues are presented to us: (1) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support defendants’ convictions of obstructing legal process? (2) Does Minn.Stat. § 609.50 (1978) violate defendants’ constitutional rights to equal protection or due process of law?…”
State v. Diedrich, 410 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 12× “The State appeals the dismissal of the complaint under Minn.Stat. § 609.50(1) (1986) for lack of probable cause, claiming the dismissal was based on errors of law.”
State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “at 915 (quoting Minn.Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1(1), (2) (2000)).”
State v. Myers, 627 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Myers pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing legal process under Minn.Stat. § 609.50, subds. 1(2) and 2(1) (2000), and one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence of alcohol.”
State v. Krawsky, 417 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 29× “This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing a misdemeanor prosecution for obstructing legal process, Minn. Stat. § 609.50 (2) (1986). The trial court concluded the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, significantly impinging on first amendment rights to…”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.50(1) — 3 cases
State v. Diedrich, 410 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
“The State appeals the dismissal of the complaint under Minn.Stat. § 609.50(1) (1986) for lack of probable cause, claiming the dismissal was based on errors of law.”
State v. Engholm, 290 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1980).
“The following issues are presented to us: (1) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support defendants’ convictions of obstructing legal process? (2) Does Minn.Stat. § 609.50 (1978) violate defendants’ constitutional rights to equal protection or due process of law?…”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.50(1986) — 1 case
State v. Diedrich, 410 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
“The State appeals the dismissal of the complaint under Minn.Stat. § 609.50(1) (1986) for lack of probable cause, claiming the dismissal was based on errors of law.”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.50(2) — 8 cases
Brian Thomas Hoyland v. Shawn McMenomy, 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017).
“Officers proceeded to his doorway where Hoyland was taken into custody and eventually charged with obstructing legal process pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.50 , a charge later dismissed for lack of probable cause.”
State v. Engholm, 290 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1980).
“The following issues are presented to us: (1) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support defendants’ convictions of obstructing legal process? (2) Does Minn.Stat. § 609.50 (1978) violate defendants’ constitutional rights to equal protection or due process of law?…”
State v. Krawsky, 417 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
“This is an appeal by the State from an order dismissing a misdemeanor prosecution for obstructing legal process, Minn. Stat. § 609.50 (2) (1986). The trial court concluded the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, significantly impinging on first amendment rights to…”
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.