Obstructing a Peace Officer in Colorado

Obstructing a peace officer in Colorado is a criminal offense that can arise when prosecutors allege that a person interfered with police, firefighters, emergency medical providers, rescue personnel, or certain volunteers while they were performing official duties or emergency assistance. These cases often develop quickly during tense encounters, traffic stops, arrests, investigations, emergency scenes, domestic calls, crowd-control situations, protests, accident responses, medical emergencies, or situations where officers believe someone physically interfered with their work.

Colorado’s obstructing-a-peace-officer statute is C.R.S. § 18-8-104. The statute applies when a person, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of official authority. The same statute also covers obstruction of firefighters, emergency medical service providers, rescue specialists, and certain volunteers providing emergency care or assistance.

Obstruction allegations can sound simple in a police report, but they are often highly fact-specific. The prosecution must prove more than disagreement, argument, confusion, slow compliance, verbal criticism, or being present near police activity. The state must prove knowing obstruction through violence, force, physical interference, a threat, or an obstacle. Because these charges often depend on officer interpretation, body camera footage, witness statements, and rapidly changing events, a careful defense is critical.

Colorado Obstructing a Peace Officer Defense Attorney

Obstructing-a-peace-officer charges often arise during chaotic situations where multiple people are speaking, officers are giving commands, emotions are high, and facts are disputed. A person may be accused of obstruction for standing too close, questioning police, not moving quickly enough, refusing to answer questions, trying to record an encounter, attempting to check on a loved one, or physically reacting during an arrest or emergency scene. In some cases, officers overstate ordinary confusion or verbal disagreement as criminal obstruction.

At the Law Office of Matthew A. Martin, P.C., we understand that obstruction cases require careful review of what actually happened, not just what an officer wrote in a report. Matthew Martin examines body camera footage, dash camera footage, witness video, officer commands, the location of the encounter, the client’s movements, whether there was actual physical interference, and whether the prosecution can prove knowing obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. We fight to protect clients from exaggerated allegations, unsupported assumptions, and unnecessary criminal consequences.

If you or someone you love has been charged with obstructing a peace officer in Colorado, call (303) 725-0017 to schedule your free consultation today.

Overview of Obstructing a Peace Officer Charges in Colorado

Back to top

Definition of Obstructing a Peace Officer Under Colorado Law

Obstructing a peace officer is governed by C.R.S. § 18-8-104. Under this statute, a person commits the offense if, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, the 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 official authority.

The statute also applies outside traditional police encounters. It covers obstruction of firefighters engaged in the prevention, control, or abatement of fire; emergency medical service providers and rescue specialists administering medical treatment or emergency assistance; and certain volunteers acting in good faith to provide emergency care or assistance at the place of an emergency or accident.

This definition is important because the statute does not criminalize every disagreement with an officer or first responder. The prosecution must prove that the accused used or threatened violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, and that the conduct knowingly obstructed, impaired, or hindered the protected activity.

Back to top

Common Situations Leading to Obstruction Charges

Traffic Stops — Obstruction charges may arise during traffic stops when officers claim that a driver or passenger refused to follow commands, physically interfered with an investigation, blocked access to a vehicle, refused to move away, or interfered while another person was being detained. The defense may examine whether the person’s conduct was truly physical interference or merely verbal disagreement.

Arrest Scenes — These cases often occur when someone tries to ask questions, approach a loved one, record police, object to the arrest, or move toward officers during an arrest. Prosecutors may argue that the person hindered the arrest, while the defense may argue that the person did not physically interfere, did not understand commands, or had no intent to obstruct.

Domestic Violence Calls — Obstruction allegations may arise during domestic disturbance calls when officers are separating parties, entering a residence, gathering information, or trying to arrest someone. These cases may involve confusion, fear, conflicting instructions, or a person trying to protect family members or property.

Accident and Emergency Scenes — Police, firefighters, EMTs, and rescue personnel may accuse someone of obstruction at car crashes, fires, medical emergencies, overdoses, or rescue scenes. The issue is often whether the accused actually interfered with emergency care or simply remained nearby out of concern.

Crowd-Control and Protest Situations — Obstruction charges may be filed during demonstrations, public gatherings, marches, or crowd-control operations. The prosecution may claim that a person blocked officer movement, refused to move, or created an obstacle. The defense may examine whether the officer’s order was clear, whether the person could comply, and whether the conduct was protected speech rather than physical obstruction.

Recording Police Encounters — People have a right to record police in many public settings, but recording can lead to conflict if officers believe the person is too close or interfering. A defense attorney may examine whether the person was lawfully recording from a safe distance or whether there was actual physical interference.

Search Warrant or Investigation Scenes — Obstruction allegations may arise when police execute a warrant, search a home, secure a scene, or question witnesses. A person may be accused of blocking entry, moving evidence, refusing commands, interfering with officers, or preventing access to a location.

Medical Assistance and Rescue Calls — EMTs and rescue specialists may report obstruction if someone prevents treatment, blocks access to a patient, refuses to move, interferes with equipment, or threatens responders. These cases can involve emotional family members, intoxication, panic, or confusion during a medical crisis.

Back to top

What Counts as Physical Interference or an Obstacle

C.R.S. § 18-8-104 requires more than ordinary speech. The statute refers to violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle. That wording matters because a person should not be convicted simply for asking questions, criticizing police, refusing to consent to a search, asserting constitutional rights, or verbally objecting to what officers are doing.

Physical interference may include conduct such as blocking an officer’s path, physically preventing an arrest, holding onto a person officers are trying to detain, refusing to move from a location after clear commands, placing objects in the way, struggling in a way that hinders emergency response, or creating a physical barrier to police or emergency work.

However, the line between physical interference and lawful conduct can be disputed. Standing nearby, recording, asking questions, moving slowly, freezing out of fear, or failing to understand conflicting commands does not automatically prove obstruction. The prosecution must show that the accused knowingly hindered the protected activity through the type of conduct covered by the statute.

Back to top

Obstructing Police, Firefighters, EMTs, Rescue Specialists, and Volunteers

Although the offense is often called obstructing a peace officer, the statute covers several categories of protected responders. It applies to peace officers enforcing criminal law or preserving the peace. It also applies to firefighters working to prevent, control, or put out fires. It applies to emergency medical service providers and rescue specialists providing medical treatment or emergency assistance. It can also apply to volunteers acting in good faith to provide emergency care or emergency assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

This broad coverage means the charge may arise from conduct involving police, fire departments, ambulances, paramedics, search-and-rescue teams, or emergency volunteers. In each situation, the prosecution must prove that the protected person was acting under the relevant legal authority or emergency role and that the accused knowingly obstructed, impaired, or hindered that activity.

The defense may challenge whether the person allegedly obstructed actually fit the statutory category, whether they were acting under color of official authority or in the required emergency capacity, and whether the accused person knew or should have understood what was happening.

Back to top

Obstructing a Peace Officer vs. Resisting Arrest

Obstructing a peace officer and resisting arrest are related but different Colorado offenses. Obstructing a peace officer under C.R.S. § 18-8-104 focuses on knowingly hindering police or emergency personnel through violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle. It can apply even when the accused person was not the person being arrested.

Resisting arrest under C.R.S. § 18-8-103 focuses on preventing or attempting to prevent a peace officer from effecting an arrest. It usually involves the person being arrested, although the facts can vary. Resisting arrest may be charged when prosecutors claim the person used or threatened violence, physical force, or another means creating a substantial risk of bodily injury to prevent an arrest.

The difference matters. A person standing near an arrest scene may be accused of obstruction, while a person accused of struggling during their own arrest may be charged with resisting arrest. Prosecutors sometimes file both charges, but the defense must analyze whether the facts actually satisfy each statute.

Back to top

Obstructing a Peace Officer vs. Obstructing Government Operations

Obstructing a peace officer is also different from obstructing government operations under C.R.S. § 18-8-102. Obstructing government operations generally involves intentionally obstructing, impairing, or hindering the performance of a governmental function by using or threatening violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle.

Obstructing a peace officer is more specific to police, firefighters, EMTs, rescue specialists, and qualifying volunteers performing the roles described in C.R.S. § 18-8-104. Obstructing government operations may apply to broader governmental functions depending on the facts.

Because the statutes overlap in some situations, prosecutors may choose one charge over another or file related counts. A defense attorney must examine which statute was charged, what conduct is alleged, and whether the evidence actually matches the legal elements.

Back to top

How Far Can You Go in a Protest Before It Becomes Obstruction?

Colorado law protects peaceful protest, public criticism of police, and expressive activity in traditional public forums such as sidewalks, parks, and streets where lawful public assembly is allowed. Protesters generally may chant, hold signs, march, observe police activity, record officers in public, criticize government action, and participate in lawful demonstrations. However, protest activity can become legally risky when police claim that a person crossed the line from speech or presence into physical interference with law enforcement, emergency response, traffic flow, public safety, or access to buildings and passageways.

For an obstructing-a-peace-officer charge under C.R.S. § 18-8-104, the issue is not simply whether the person was protesting or whether the officer disliked the protest. The prosecution must prove that the person knowingly obstructed, impaired, or hindered a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical provider, rescue specialist, or covered volunteer by using or threatening violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle. Mere shouting, chanting, questioning officers, filming police, or refusing to answer questions should not automatically become obstruction unless the state can prove the specific physical-interference elements required by the statute.

Protesters may face obstruction allegations if they physically block officers from making an arrest, stand in a way that prevents officers or emergency responders from moving through an area, place objects in a roadway or doorway, refuse a clear and lawful order to move away from an emergency scene, push against police lines, lock arms to prevent access, interfere with medical treatment, or create a physical barrier that hinders police or emergency duties. They may also face separate charges if they block streets, sidewalks, entrances, exits, or other public passageways in a way that prosecutors believe violates Colorado’s obstruction-of-highways statute.

The First Amendment does not give protesters an unlimited right to block traffic, occupy private property, prevent access to buildings, interfere with arrests, or disregard lawful time, place, and manner restrictions. Even civil disobedience that is expressive may still lead to arrest if it involves refusing to leave, blocking passage, or physically interfering with police activity. The ACLU of Colorado explains that when protesters do not have a permit, officers may ask them to move to the side of a street or sidewalk so others can pass or for safety reasons.

At the same time, police cannot lawfully convert protected protest activity into obstruction simply because the protest is loud, unpopular, inconvenient, critical of police, or politically controversial. Recording police from a safe distance, standing on a public sidewalk without blocking passage, chanting, holding signs, asking officers questions, or verbally objecting to police conduct is different from physically interfering with an officer’s duties. The ACLU recognizes the right to film police activity in public spaces, and that right can be especially important during protests.

The line between lawful protest and alleged obstruction often depends on the details: where the person was standing, whether passage was actually blocked, whether officers gave a clear order, whether the person heard and understood the order, whether compliance was realistically possible, whether the person used force or physical interference, whether emergency responders were trying to reach someone, whether a permit or dispersal order applied, and whether video evidence supports the officer’s version of events. In protest-related obstruction cases, body camera footage, bystander video, livestreams, aerial footage, dispatch recordings, and witness statements may be critical.

A person accused of obstruction during a protest should not assume that the charge is valid simply because police made an arrest. The prosecution still must prove the required statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense attorney may argue that the accused was engaged in protected speech, was lawfully recording, was not physically interfering, did not knowingly obstruct anyone, did not hear or understand the order, was trapped by crowd movement, was following conflicting commands, or was wrongly singled out from a larger crowd.

Back to top

What if the Officer Was Acting Unlawfully?

One of the most important questions in an obstructing-a-peace-officer case is whether the officer was acting lawfully and within the scope of official authority. Colorado’s obstruction statute applies when a peace officer is acting “under color of official authority” while enforcing the law or preserving the peace. That does not mean every police action is automatically lawful, and it does not mean officers can convert an unlawful stop, search, entry, detention, or arrest into an obstruction charge simply because a person questioned what was happening.

If an officer violated constitutional rights, acted without reasonable suspicion, made an unlawful arrest, entered a home without legal authority, conducted an illegal search, used excessive force, or issued commands that were not lawful or reasonable under the circumstances, those facts may become central to the defense. A criminal defense attorney may challenge the legality of the officer’s conduct, seek suppression of evidence, argue that the state cannot prove the statutory elements, or show that the accused person was reacting to unlawful police behavior rather than knowingly obstructing lawful duties.

However, people should be cautious about assuming they can physically resist or interfere with an officer simply because they believe the officer is wrong. Courts often separate the legality of the police conduct from the defendant’s response. Verbal objection, refusal to consent to a search, asking questions, recording from a safe distance, or later challenging the officer’s actions in court may be very different from using force, physical interference, or creating an obstacle during the encounter. The safest and strongest legal strategy is usually to avoid physical confrontation, preserve evidence, document what happened, and challenge the unlawful conduct through the court process.

In obstruction cases, the defense must closely examine what the officer was doing, what legal authority the officer claimed to have, what commands were given, whether those commands were lawful and clear, whether the accused person had a realistic opportunity to comply, and whether the accused person’s conduct actually obstructed, impaired, or hindered lawful police activity. Body camera footage, witness video, dispatch recordings, search warrants, arrest reports, and constitutional motions may all be critical in determining whether the officer’s conduct undermines the prosecution’s case.

Back to top

Penalties for Obstructing a Peace Officer in Colorado

Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer under C.R.S. § 18-8-104 is a class 2 misdemeanor.

For offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022, a class 2 misdemeanor in Colorado generally carries up to 120 days in county jail, a fine of up to $750, or both. The court may also impose probation, useful public service, court costs, treatment conditions, no-contact orders, or other conditions depending on the facts of the case.

Although a class 2 misdemeanor is lower than a felony, the consequences can still be serious. A conviction creates a criminal record and may be viewed negatively because it suggests interference with law enforcement or emergency responders. That can affect employment, professional licensing, security clearances, immigration matters, housing, and future interactions with the criminal justice system.

Related Charges Can Increase the Exposure — Obstructing a peace officer is often charged alongside resisting arrest, assault on a peace officer, disorderly conduct, harassment, trespass, obstructing government operations, failure to obey a lawful order, eluding, driving offenses, domestic violence-related charges, or violation of a protection order. When related charges are filed, the total exposure may be much greater than the obstruction count alone.

Back to top

Collateral Consequences of an Obstruction Conviction

A conviction for obstructing a peace officer can create consequences beyond jail, fines, or probation. Employers may view the conviction as a sign that the person does not follow lawful authority or creates conflict with law enforcement. This can be especially damaging for people who work in government, healthcare, security, education, transportation, licensed professions, or jobs requiring background checks.

For noncitizens, any criminal conviction should be reviewed carefully for immigration consequences. Although obstruction is a misdemeanor, immigration effects depend on the exact conviction, facts, sentence, and immigration status. A person with immigration concerns should speak with an attorney before entering any plea.

An obstruction conviction may also affect future cases. Prosecutors and judges may view a prior obstruction conviction negatively if the person is later accused of resisting arrest, interfering with police, violating court orders, or failing to comply with official directions.

Back to top

Defenses to Obstructing a Peace Officer Charges

No Physical Interference, Force, Violence, Threat, or Obstacle — The statute requires specific obstructive conduct. Verbal disagreement, criticism, questioning, or refusal to consent to a search is not automatically obstruction. The defense may argue that the accused did not use or threaten violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle.

No Knowing Conduct — The prosecution must prove that the accused acted knowingly. If the person did not understand the command, was confused, could not hear the officer, was reacting to chaos, or did not know they were interfering, the state may have difficulty proving this element.

No Actual Obstruction, Impairment, or Hindrance — Even if the accused acted imperfectly, the prosecution must prove that the conduct obstructed, impaired, or hindered the protected activity. If officers were able to complete their duties without meaningful interference, the defense may challenge this element.

Lawful Recording or Protected Speech — Recording police, asking questions, criticizing officers, or asserting constitutional rights does not automatically constitute obstruction. The defense may argue that the prosecution is punishing protected speech rather than actual physical interference.

Unclear or Conflicting Commands — Police encounters can involve multiple officers shouting different instructions. A person may be told to move one way by one officer and another way by another officer. Conflicting, vague, or inaudible commands can make it difficult for the prosecution to prove knowing obstruction.

No Officer Acting Under Color of Official Authority — The statute requires the peace officer to be acting under color of official authority. If there is a dispute about the officer’s role, authority, or conduct, the defense may challenge whether the statute applies.

Emergency Responder Was Not Covered by the Statute — In cases involving firefighters, EMTs, rescue specialists, or volunteers, the prosecution must prove that the person allegedly obstructed fit the statutory category and was performing the required emergency role.

Illegal Stop, Detention, Search, or Arrest — Obstruction cases often arise from police encounters that may have begun unlawfully. A defense attorney may challenge unconstitutional stops, searches, seizures, or arrests and seek suppression of evidence where appropriate.

Self-Defense or Excessive Force Issues — If officers used excessive force, the accused person’s reaction may need to be evaluated in context. These cases are fact-specific and require careful review of video evidence, injuries, witness accounts, and the sequence of events.

Insufficient or Conflicting Evidence — Many obstruction cases depend heavily on officer testimony. Body camera footage, civilian video, dispatch recordings, witness statements, and physical evidence may contradict or weaken the police report. The prosecution must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Back to top

Role of a Colorado Criminal Defense Attorney

Reviewing Body Camera and Dash Camera Footage — Obstruction cases often depend on video evidence. A defense attorney reviews footage carefully to determine what commands were given, where the accused was standing, what movements occurred, and whether there was actual interference.

Challenging the Officer’s Interpretation — Officers may describe conduct as obstruction when video shows confusion, hesitation, lawful questioning, or protected recording. Defense counsel compares the report against objective evidence.

Examining the Lawfulness of the Police Encounter — If the case began with an unlawful stop, detention, search, entry, or arrest, the defense may seek suppression or dismissal depending on the facts.

Identifying Protected Speech and Lawful Conduct — A defense attorney separates criminal obstruction from lawful speech, lawful recording, refusal to consent, or assertion of rights.

Investigating Witnesses and Civilian Video — Bystander video, 911 calls, dispatch audio, surveillance footage, and witness statements may provide context that police reports omit.

Challenging the Mental State — The prosecution must prove knowing obstruction. Matthew Martin examines whether the accused heard the command, understood it, had time to comply, knew the person was an officer or responder, and knowingly interfered.

Negotiating Reduced Charges or Dismissal — In some cases, the evidence may be weak enough to seek dismissal. In others, defense counsel may pursue a reduction, deferred judgment, or outcome that avoids the long-term consequences of a conviction.

Trial Representation — If the case proceeds to trial, the defense attorney cross-examines officers, presents video evidence, challenges assumptions, explains the legal standard, and emphasizes the state’s burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Back to top

Key Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

To convict a person of obstructing a peace officer under C.R.S. § 18-8-104, the prosecution must generally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

  • the defendant used or threatened to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle;
  • the defendant acted knowingly;
  • the defendant obstructed, impaired, or hindered the enforcement of the penal law or preservation of the peace;
  • the person allegedly obstructed was a peace officer acting under color of official authority; and
  • the conduct occurred in Colorado at or about the date and place charged.

If the case involves a firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer, the prosecution must prove the statutory role of that person and that the accused knowingly obstructed, impaired, or hindered the protected emergency, medical, rescue, firefighting, or volunteer assistance activity.

If the prosecution cannot prove knowing conduct, physical interference or a qualifying threat, actual obstruction, or the protected role of the person allegedly obstructed, the defendant cannot be convicted of the charged offense.

Back to top

Frequently Asked Questions

Is obstructing a peace officer a felony in Colorado?
No. Obstructing a peace officer under C.R.S. § 18-8-104 is a class 2 misdemeanor.

What is the penalty for obstructing a peace officer in Colorado?
A class 2 misdemeanor generally carries up to 120 days in county jail, a fine of up to $750, or both. The court may also impose probation or other conditions.

Can I be charged for arguing with police?
Argument alone is usually not enough. The statute requires violence, force, physical interference, a threat, or an obstacle that knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders police or emergency responders.

Can I be charged for recording police?
Recording police is not automatically obstruction. However, police may claim obstruction if they believe the recording physically interfered with their duties, such as by standing too close or blocking access. The facts matter.

What if I did not hear the officer’s command?
That can be an important defense. The prosecution must prove knowing obstruction. If the command was inaudible, unclear, or impossible to follow, the state may have difficulty proving the charge.

Is obstructing a peace officer the same as resisting arrest?
No. Resisting arrest focuses on preventing an arrest. Obstructing a peace officer focuses more broadly on hindering police or emergency duties through physical interference, force, violence, threats, or obstacles.

Can obstruction be charged even if I was not being arrested?
Yes. A person can be charged with obstruction even if someone else was being arrested or if the officer was performing another law-enforcement duty.

Can a firefighter or EMT be the alleged victim of obstruction?
Yes. C.R.S. § 18-8-104 also covers firefighters, emergency medical service providers, rescue specialists, and certain volunteers providing emergency care or assistance.

Can police charge obstruction if I refuse to answer questions?
Refusing to answer questions or asserting the right to remain silent is not automatically obstruction. The prosecution must prove the statutory elements.

Can obstruction charges be dismissed or reduced?
Sometimes. Dismissal or reduction may be possible if the evidence is weak, the conduct was only verbal, commands were unclear, video contradicts the report, or the prosecution cannot prove knowing physical interference.

Back to top

Additional Resources

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-104 – Obstructing a Peace Officer, Firefighter, Emergency Medical Service Provider, Rescue Specialist, or Volunteer — This is the primary Colorado statute defining obstruction of police and emergency responders. It sets out the required conduct, covered responders, and misdemeanor classification.

Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-8-103 – Resisting Arrest — This statute may be relevant when prosecutors allege that the accused person interfered with or resisted an arrest.

ACLU of Colorado – This non-profit organization provides resources for Colorado citizens’ rights to protest, and defends individuals against civil rights violations by law enforcement

Back to top

Finding a Colorado Obstructing a Peace Officer Defense Attorney

Obstructing-a-peace-officer charges in Colorado often arise from stressful, fast-moving encounters where police reports may not tell the whole story. A person may be accused because they questioned officers, stood too close, hesitated, tried to record, reacted emotionally, or misunderstood commands. But Colorado law requires proof of knowing obstruction through violence, force, physical interference, a threat, or an obstacle.

At the Law Office of Matthew A. Martin, P.C., we defend clients facing obstruction, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, assault on a peace officer, protest-related charges, emergency-scene allegations, and other criminal matters throughout Colorado. We review video evidence, challenge weak allegations, protect constitutional rights, and fight to reduce the impact of criminal charges on our clients’ freedom, records, and future.

If you are facing obstructing a peace officer charges in Colorado, call (303) 725-0017 today to schedule your free consultation.

Avvo Rating
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Colorado Criminal Defense Bar
National College for DUI Defense
Better Business Bureau