Obstructing a Peace Officer, Firefighter, Emergency Medical Service Provider, Rescue Specialist, or Volunteer in Colorado

The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are experienced criminal defense attorneys who defend people charged with obstructing a peace officer charges.

Obstructing a peace officer is defined in C.R.S. 18-8-104 which defines obstructing a peace officer, as follows:

C.R.S. 18-8-104, Colorado’s Obstructing a Peace Officer, Firefighter, Emergency Medical Service Provider, Rescue Specialist, or Volunteer Statute

In Colorado:

(1) Intentionally left blank —Ed.

(a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(1.5) A person shall not be charged with the offense described in subsection (1) of this section because the person remained silent or because the person stated a verbal opposition to an order by a government official.

(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he or she was acting under color of his or her official authority. A peace officer acts “under color of his or her official authority” if, in the regular course of assigned duties, he or she makes a judgment in good faith based on surrounding facts and circumstances that he or she must act to enforce the law or preserve the peace.

(2.5) If a person is alleged to have committed the offense described in subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) of this section by using or threatening to use an unmanned aircraft system as an obstacle, the offense does not apply if the person who operates the unmanned aircraft system:

(a) Obtains permission to operate the unmanned aircraft system from a law enforcement agency or other entity that is coordinating the response of peace officers, firefighters, emergency medical service providers, rescue specialists, or volunteers to an emergency or accident;

(b) Continues to communicate with such entity during the operation of the unmanned aircraft system; and

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Emergency medical service provider” means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) “Obstacle” includes an unmanned aircraft system.

(c) “Rescue specialist” means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.

Possible Penalties for Obstructing a Peace Officer, et al. in Colorado

Obstructing a Peace Officer, et al.

C.R.S. 18-8-104(4)

Possible Penalties

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Up to 120 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$750 fine;
Restitution

Obstructing a Peace Officer, et al.

(Click Links Below To See Penalties)

C.R.S. 18-8-104(4)

Possible Penalties

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Up to 120 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$750 fine;
Restitution

Defenses to Obstructing a Peace Officer in Colorado

General Denial

The accused will be acquitted if the prosecution cannot prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When the accused raises a general denial defense, the accused denies that the criminal elements of the offense exist. General denial is related to the failure of proof defense. The failure of proof defense arises when the accused pokes holes in the prosecution’s case and argues that the prosecution failed to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mistaken Identity

Mistaken identity is a general denial defense that attacks the element of who committed the alleged offense. As the prosecution is required not only to prove that the offense happened, but that the person charged committed the offense, the mistaken identity defense can be an effective way to challenge the prosecution on the element of who committed the crime. In the context of an obstructing a peace officer, et al. case, mistaken identify defenses usually arise when the accused is arrested and charged with disobedience to public safety orders in riot conditions after the alleged offense happened or when the accused is identified after a chaotic situation where eyewitness accounts are not trustworthy. Mistaken identity cases often involve witness misidentification issues, poor witness perception issues, inaccurate, improper, or biased police identification procedures, grainy surveillance videos, and mistaken eyewitness accounts.

Alternate Suspect

The alternate suspect defense occasionally arises in obstructing a peace officer, et al. cases. When the accused raises the alternate suspect defense, he or she does so to cast doubt on the identity element of the offense. In other words, the alternate suspect defense is used to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence that the accused committed the crime. By raising the alternate suspect defense, the accused casts doubt on the identity element of offense by raising the possibility that another person committed the offense rather than the accused. In Colorado obstructing a peace officer, et al. trials the admissibility of alternate suspect evidence will depend on “the strength of the connection between the alternate suspect and the charged crime. If there is a non-speculative connection or nexus between the alternate suspect and the crime charged, the evidence will be admissible.”

If the defense introduces “alternate suspect” evidence, the judge must “look to whether all the similar acts and circumstances, taken together, support a finding that the same person was probably involved in both the other act and the charged crime.” If the judge finds that the accused has presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that an alternate suspect committed the crime, the accused can have the jury consider this evidence in their deliberations. While the alternate suspect defense is seldom used in obstructing a peace officer, et al. cases, certain circumstances will give rise to the availability of this defense.

Duress

Under Colorado’s duress statute C.R.S. 18-1-708, a person may not be convicted of an offense, other than a class 1 felony, based upon conduct in which he engaged at the direction of another person because of the use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him or upon another person, which force or threatened use thereof a reasonable person in his situation would have been unable to resist. This defense is not available when a person intentionally or recklessly places himself in a situation in which it is foreseeable that he will be subjected to such force or threatened use thereof. The choice of evils defense, provided in section 18-1-702, shall not be available to a defendant in addition to the defense of duress provided under this section unless separate facts exist which warrant its application.

Entrapment

Under Colorado’s entrapment statute, C.R.S. 18-1-709, the commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement official or other person acting under his direction, seeking to obtain evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and the methods used to obtain that evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the acts would be committed by a person who, but for such inducement, would not have conceived of or engaged in conduct of the sort induced. Merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense is not entrapment even though representations or inducements calculated to overcome the offender’s fear of detection are used.

Choice of Evils

Under Colorado’s choice of evils statute, C.R.S. 18-1-702 (1) conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. When evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered by the defendant, before it is submitted for the consideration of the jury, the court shall first rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.

Statute of Limitations for Obstructing a Peace Officer, et al. in Colorado

In Colorado the statute of limitations for commencing criminal charges against a person is governed by C.R.S. Section 16-5-401. The statute of limitations for commencing criminal charges for obstructing a peace officer, et al. in Colorado is as follows:

Misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer, et al. charges must be filed within 18 months. C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a.5)

Legal References

C.R.S. 18-8-104 https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_18-8-104

Contact the Attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm to Fight for You Today

If you’ve been charged with obstructing a peace officer, et al. contact the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm to vindicate your rights and protect your liberties. If you’re facing criminal charges or fear you may be charged, time is of the essence. Start Your Free Criminal Defense Case Quote. By retaining Rights & Liberties Law Firm you can rest assured that:

The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will use experienced investigators and experts to look into the case to get ahead of the police and prosecutors, whether there has already been an arrest or an investigation is on-going;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will advocate for you during your bond hearing to get you released from custody on the lowest possible amount of bail or on a personal recognizance bond;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will litigate all constitutional violations and fight to suppress any evidence illegally seized or obtained by police and investigators in violation of your rights;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are trial dogs. If you’re prepared to go all the way, so are we. We’ll take your case to the jury and fight with everything we’ve got to secure your acquittal.
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are skilled negotiators. If you’ve made a mistake we will leave no stone unturned in presenting mitigation to contextualize your circumstances. We will obtain information and prepare a mitigation presentation or report to the prosecutor to present you in your best light and show the state and the judge that despite your mistakes you’re a dignified human being worthy of leniency and redemption. We will protect you from the overly punitive instincts of the criminal legal system and obtain the best plea bargain possible.
If you’re up against the wall facing serious charges, jail, or prison time the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm have your back. From drug distribution and barfights to sex assaults and homicides the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm know that life gets wild and things fall apart. We’ll fight to keep your life together and advocate to ensure that you receive a non-prison sentence, or one which results in the lowest amount of prison time possible.
If you’re wondering why we do this work, we’re in it because we care. At Rights & Liberties Law Firm we believe that no individual’s crime holds a candle to the injustices meted out by our unusually cruel overly punitive criminal legal system. At Rights & Liberties Law Firm we fight for people whose talents, dreams, and lives have been put on hold by a criminal accusation. Let us fight for you.