City of Warrensville Hts. v. Wason
This text of 361 N.E.2d 546 (City of Warrensville Hts. v. Wason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Defendant-appellant Wallace B. Wason (defendant) was convicted of interfering with a police officer in performance of his duties in Warrensville Heights under an ordinance of that municipality. The ordinance provides:
“No person shall resist, hinder, obstruct or abuse any •official while such official is attempting to arrest offenders under this Traffic Code. No person shall interfere with any person charged under sueh sections with the enforcement of the iaw relative to. public streets.” Section 303.03, Codified Ordinances of Traffic of Warrensville Heights.
The gist of the alleged offense was that defendant, *22 driving northbound on Dalebridge Road in Warrensville Heights, flashed his headlights at oncoming automobiles to warn them that they were approaching a radar speed trap. There was testimony that traffic slowed after the warning but the record indicates that none of the warned vehicles had been speeding before the warning, and none were exceeding the speed limit as they passed the radar. The lone state witness, a police officer, answered “probably not” to the question whether defendant was doing “anything to interfere or slow down your only duty of being there that day? [sic].” The officer also said he was not attempting to arrest anyone when he approached the defendant other than the defendant himself. Defendant’s action occurred about twenty minutes after he had been clocked and cited for speeding southbound on Dalebridge Road. Defendant expressed some annoyance with the police for. devoting their energies to traffic violations rather than more serious crimes. These events occurred on April 25, 1975, shortly after 6:30 p. m. (or 7:30 p. m.).
Defendant claimed he was testing his headlights although he conceded they were not necessary for visibility. Defendant appealed assigning two errors which are set out in the margin. 1
Because the assignments raise essentially a single issue, they are treated together. That issue becomes, based on the facts in this case and giving those facts an interpretation most favorable to the city, was defendant guilty of obstruction?
*23 We reverse.
I.
Our perception of the issue in this case begins with the propositions that defendant was neither assisting the police in the performance of their duties, nor testing his lights when he behaved as he did. Such excuses are too specious to warrant further comment. Our view of the case also proceeds on the assumption that illegal interference or obstruction can be established without actual physical hinderance. 2
n.
Relatively few reported decisions have addressed the issue in this case. 3 Three reported decisions do point the way toward resolution.
In Bastable v. Little (1906), 76 K. B. 77, police officers had marked off several furlongs with spaces between in order to gauge the speed of motor cars passing over the measured distances. The respondent used hand signals, augmented by a newspaper, and verbal warnings of the “police trap” to notify motorists of the police activity. He was convicted óf obstruction; The court reversed the conviction relying heavily upon the absence of evidence either that (1) the motorists were actually breaking the law at the time of respondent’s action, or (2) that he was acting in concert with them. His knowledge that there was a police trap was apparently not enough, 4 although this certainly-evidences intent.
In a second case, Betts v. Stevens (1909), 79 K. B. 17, officers again were timing to detect automobile speeders. This activity was monitored by appellant Betts in his ea *24 pacity as a “sergeant” of patrols for the Automobile Association. Betts undertook to signal a slowdown to automobiles. Some of these were marked with “A. A.” insignia indicating membership in the association and apparently all slowed enough to come within the speed limit. When the police proceeded to two additional locations in sequence and set up to time speeders, the appellant went along and renewed his activity. On these occasions he warned persons who were exceeding the limit. 5 He was convicted of obstruction. The conviction was affirmed. The Justices disinguished Bastable v. Little on the ground that in that ease there was no evidence of unlawful speed at the time of the warning. 6 Apparently, neither the Bastable nor Betts court had any problem with the evidence of intent. It is clear, then, that the rationale of the cases depended upon two elements:
(1) an intent to warn a third person of the police presence,
(2) to prevent detection of an illegal act.
Research has disclosed only one Ohio printed report of a case whose facts approximate those in the present one. In that case, Akron v. Matteson (1972), 63 Ohio Op. 2d 146, 148, the court acquitted the defendant. He was charged under a state statute 7 couched in language substantially identical with that of the Warrensville Heights ordinance. The court in Matteson at 147-148, aware of Bastable and Betts, reasoned that because there was no evidence of speeders “in or about the area when defendant flashed her lights,” a rhetorical question had to be answered. That question was:
“* * * Can we say that these radar officers were ‘attempting to arrest offenders’ or that some other duties of theirs were affected?”
The acquittal provided a positive “No.”
*25 III.
An essential condition to quicken the obligation of policemen to enforce the law, whether it be a traffic violation or a more serious offense, is illegality. This does not mean that an officer must restrain himself until an illegal act has climaxed. For instance, he may detain a person flourishing a pistol without waiting for the gun to be fired. But the officer may not make a search for weapons simply because he suspects a person is armed unless and until the suspicion ripens into probable cause or, at least, until the circumstances justify a reasonable man in concluding that he must initiate search action for his own safety. 8
It follows that one of the elements of obstruction is the presence of an illegal act which generates the policeman’s duty to enforce the law. An additional element is interference with intent to impede the performance of. that duty. In the present case it is conceded that the defendant did not warn persons who were violating the law. The drivers whom he signalled were not shown to be speeding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
361 N.E.2d 546, 50 Ohio App. 2d 21, 4 Ohio Op. 3d 12, 1976 Ohio App. LEXIS 5839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-warrensville-hts-v-wason-ohioctapp-1976.