Anoka County Attorney
Training Update
Sean Gibbs
March, 2001
LIES ARE NOT ALWAYS
ENOUGH . . .
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently decided in State v. Tomlin that lying to a police officer, absent other facts, is NOT enough to convict someone of Obstruction Of Legal Process under Minn.Stat. 609.50, subd. 1(1) or (2).
The Facts of Tomlin:
Defendant Tomlin lied to police to cover up for his friends who were involved in a criminal vehicular operation. Defendant and his friends were at a bar drinking. At approximately 1:30 a.m., Defendant was being driven home by another person when he observed two of his friends, who were driving other vehicles, become involved in the hit and run of a pedestrian. When police arrived to investigate, Defendant misstated several things to the police, including that he did not know the driver of the vehicle that hit the pedestrian.
The Court=s Ruling:
The Court held that the Obstruction Of Legal Process statute (Minn.Stat. 609.50) is directed solely at a particular kind of physical act that physically obstructs or interferes with an officer. Physically obstructing or interfering is conduct that involves substantially frustrating or hindering the officer in the performance of his duties. Thus, the court narrowly construed the obstructing statute to apply to physical acts.
HOWEVER, the court did acknowledge that in limited circumstances, it might be possible for words, such as Afighting words@ to have the effect of physically obstructing or interfering with an officer.
NONETHELESS, in the above Tomlin case, the Court found that while defendant lied to police and his lies may have interrupted the officer=s investigation, defendant=s lies did not rise to the level of physically obstructing the officers. The Court went on to explain that while the defendant=s lies did lengthen the time it took police to apprehend a suspect, the lies did not physically prevent or obstruct police from trying to obtain the evidence.
A Crime to Consider in the Alternative:
While simply lying to police as in the Tomlin case may not be Aobstructing legal process@ under Minn. Stat. 609.50, remember that for certain crimes, providing false or misleading information about a crime CAN BE a felony crime, if a person intentionally aids another person known to have committed a Acriminal act@ by providing false or misleading information about a crime. This crime is called AIDING AN OFFENDER, Minn. Stat. 609.495, subd. 1, 3.
A Acriminal act,@ for purposes of the Aiding an Offender statute, is defined by Minn. Stat. 609.11, subd. 9, and includes the crimes of murder, some assaults, burglary, kidnaping, and robbery, but does NOT include the crime from the Tomlin case, criminal vehicular operation. (See the specific statute for a comprehensive list of all crimes.)
Finally, the decision in the Tomlin case also obviously does not affect the statute FALSELY REPORTING A CRIME, Minn. Stat. 609.505, which makes it a crime to inform a law enforcement officer that a crime has been committed, knowing that it is false (a lie) and intending that the officer shall act in reliance upon it.
Sean Gibbs, Assistant Anoka County Attorney