Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (2026)

Obstructing government operations; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A person commits the offense of obstructing government operations if he intentionally obstructs, impairs, or perverts the administration of law or other governmental functions by force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of official duty, or any other unlawful act, except that this section does not apply to flight by a person charged with crime, refusal to submit to arrest, failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions.

(2) Obstructing government operations is a Class I misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Wilkinson, 881 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2016).
State v. Wilkinson, 881 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 6× “, appeals from the district court’s order affirming his conviction and sentence for obstructing gov- ernment operations in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 2008). The State alleges that Wilkinson interfered with the prosecution of a city employee in order to…”
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 24× “*600 The State charged Stolen with one count of obstructing government operations under § 28-901 and one count of procuring alcohol for a minor.”
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 19× “The jury further found that Fahlk obstructed government operations, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (1) (Reissue 1989), by giving a purported equipment checkout sheet to investigators inquiring about the missing computer.”
State v. Douglas, 349 N.W.2d 870 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 10× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 relating to obstructing governmental operations; or, C.”
Waldron v. Roark, 298 Neb. 26 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 6× “In so doing, we find that regardless of whether probable cause existed to justify Waldron’s arrest, Roark is entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong because the law is not so clearly established that every reasonable offi- cial standing in Roark’s shoes would have…”
Waldron v. Roark, 874 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “040 (2016) (intentionally false reporting by stating that Copple was not home), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 2008) (obstruct- ing government operations), and § 28-904 (resisting arrest).”
State v. Stolen, 741 N.W.2d 168 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “Steve Stolen was convicted of obstructing government operations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (1) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Douglas, 388 N.W.2d 801 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 2× “Count II charged Douglas with obstruction of justice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (1) (Reissue 1985).”
In Re Krepela, 628 N.W.2d 262 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Commission stated that Krepela's actions constituted, at least facially, violations of at least three criminal statutes: Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 1995) (obstructing government operations); Neb.”
Nebraska Legislature ex rel. State v. Hergert, 720 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 8× “In article V, entitled “Obstructing Government Operations,” the Legislature charged that the January 11, 2005, campaign statement constituted intentional obstruction of government operations, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 1995). The Legislature alleged that…”
State v. Fahlk, 510 N.W.2d 97 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “§28-511 (1) (Reissue 1989), and with obstructing government operations, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 1989). In response to the State’s pretrial motion in limine, the trial court prohibited Fahlk from eliciting testimony or presenting evidence to show that…”
Ne Legislature Ex Rel. State v. Hergert, 720 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 8× “In article V, entitled "Obstructing Government Operations," the Legislature charged that the January 11, 2005, campaign statement constituted intentional obstruction of government operations, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 1995). The Legislature alleged that…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901(1) — 7 cases
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994). “The jury further found that Fahlk obstructed government operations, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (1) (Reissue 1989), by giving a purported equipment checkout sheet to investigators inquiring about the missing computer.”
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008). “*600 The State charged Stolen with one count of obstructing government operations under § 28-901 and one count of procuring alcohol for a minor.”
State v. Wilkinson, 881 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2016). “, appeals from the district court’s order affirming his conviction and sentence for obstructing gov- ernment operations in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (Reissue 2008). The State alleges that Wilkinson interfered with the prosecution of a city employee in order to…”
Waldron v. Roark, 298 Neb. 26 (Neb. 2017). “In so doing, we find that regardless of whether probable cause existed to justify Waldron’s arrest, Roark is entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong because the law is not so clearly established that every reasonable offi- cial standing in Roark’s shoes would have…”
State v. Stolen, 741 N.W.2d 168 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007). “Steve Stolen was convicted of obstructing government operations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901 (1) (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901(2) — 1 case
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008). “*600 The State charged Stolen with one count of obstructing government operations under § 28-901 and one count of procuring alcohol for a minor.”
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.