Obstructing a highway in Colorado is a criminal offense that can arise from far more than a formal protest or large public demonstration. Prosecutors may file these charges whenever they believe a person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly blocked a roadway, sidewalk, building entrance, hallway, or another public passageway, or refused a reasonable order to move. Because these cases often involve public safety concerns, crowd-control decisions, or tense law-enforcement encounters, they can develop quickly and may be charged more aggressively than people expect. Colorado’s obstructing-highway statute is C.R.S. § 18-9-107. It applies to obstruction of a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, building entrance, elevator, aisle, stairway, hallway, or another place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances.
These allegations frequently come out of marches, protests, demonstrations, traffic disputes, crowd gatherings, labor actions, funeral-related incidents, or situations where officers claim that a person refused to clear an area after being told to move. In many cases, the central dispute is not whether the person was physically present in the area, but whether they truly “obstructed” passage within the meaning of the statute, whether the officer’s order was reasonable, and whether the defendant acted with the required mental state. Colorado law defines “obstruct” as rendering passage impassable or rendering passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.
Colorado Obstructing Highways Defense Attorney
Obstructing-highway allegations often sound simple on paper, but they can be highly fact-specific and legally nuanced in practice. The state must prove more than mere presence near a roadway or passageway. Prosecutors still have to establish the required mental state, the existence of an actual obstruction, or a knowing refusal to comply with a reasonable order to move, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the Law Office of Matthew A. Martin, P.C., we understand that these cases often arise in chaotic and rapidly changing situations involving crowd movement, unclear police commands, competing uses of public space, or exaggerated law-enforcement interpretations of what actually happened. Matthew Martin carefully examines the video evidence, the exact wording of police orders, the location and layout of the scene, and whether the prosecution can truly prove a criminal obstruction rather than temporary inconvenience, confusion, or protected activity. We fight to ensure our clients receive a full and fair defense when facing public-order charges in Colorado.
If you or someone you love has been charged with obstructing highways or other passageways in Colorado, call (303) 725-0017 to schedule your free consultation today.
Overview of Obstructing Highway Charges in Colorado
- Definition of Obstructing Highways Under Colorado Law
- Common Situations Leading to Obstructing Highways Charges
- Penalties for Obstructing Highways in Colorado
- Defenses to Obstructing Highways Charges
- Role of a Colorado Criminal Defense Attorney
- Key Elements the Prosecution Must Prove
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Additional Resources
Definition of Obstructing Highways Under Colorado Law
Obstructing a highway or other passageway is governed by C.R.S. § 18-9-107. Under subsection (1), an individual or corporation commits the offense if, without legal privilege, they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly either obstruct a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, building entrance, elevator, aisle, stairway, hallway, or other place used for passage, or disobey a reasonable request or order to move issued by someone they know to be a peace officer, firefighter, or person with authority to control the premises. The statute further explains in subsection (2) that “obstruct” means to render passage impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.
That definition matters because not every delay, inconvenience, crowding condition, or temporary slowdown automatically amounts to a criminal obstruction. The prosecution must still prove that the conduct crossed the line into a statutorily defined obstruction or that a lawful and reasonable order to move was knowingly disobeyed. In many cases, the defense focuses on whether passage was truly obstructed, whether the order was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether the accused actually possessed the mental state required by law.
Common Situations Leading to Obstructing Highways Charges
Protests, Demonstrations, and Marches — These charges often arise when demonstrators gather in streets, near intersections, outside government buildings, or along public sidewalks. Officers may claim that a roadway or passage was obstructed even when the participants believed they were engaged in lawful expression or following the movement of a crowd. In these cases, the legal issue is often not simply whether the person was present, but whether the state can prove criminal obstruction as defined by the statute rather than general disruption associated with public assembly.
Refusal-to-Move Allegations After Police Orders — Many obstructing-highway cases are built around subsection (1)(b) of the statute, which addresses disobeying a reasonable request or order to move. These cases often turn on whether the defendant heard the order, understood it, had a real opportunity to comply, and knew the person issuing it was a peace officer, firefighter, or someone with authority over the premises. Defense counsel often examines body camera footage and surrounding circumstances to determine whether the order was actually reasonable, audible, lawful, and directed clearly enough to support a conviction.
Crowd-Control or Emergency Scenes — Obstructing charges can also arise near fires, riots, accident scenes, police perimeters, or other emergency situations where law enforcement is trying to move people away from danger. In these cases, the prosecution may argue that the defendant’s refusal to leave or continued presence interfered with public safety or emergency access. But even in emergency contexts, the statute still requires proof of obstruction or knowing disobedience of a reasonable order.
Funeral or Funeral Procession Incidents — Colorado law specifically treats certain funeral-related obstruction conduct more seriously. Under subsection (3), knowingly obstructing the entrance into or exit from a funeral or funeral site, or knowingly obstructing a highway or other passageway where a funeral procession is taking place, is a class 2 misdemeanor rather than a petty offense. That statutory distinction means funeral-related cases require especially careful attention to the exact setting and the prosecution’s factual theory.
Labor, Picketing, or Access Disputes — Obstructing highway charges may arise in labor demonstrations, business access conflicts, or disputes involving entrances to workplaces or commercial property. These cases can be especially fact-intensive because they may involve overlapping issues of property rights, public access, protected activity, and crowd movement. Defense counsel must carefully separate lawful presence and expressive activity from the narrower conduct criminalized by the statute.
Traffic or Personal Disputes Escalating Into Public-Order Charges — Not every obstructing-highway case begins with organized activity. Sometimes the charge follows a heated confrontation in or near a roadway, a vehicle dispute, or a refusal to leave an area after a conflict has already begun. In those situations, the prosecution may use the statute to reframe a tense encounter as a public-passage offense, even where the evidence of actual obstruction is weak or highly disputed.
Penalties for Obstructing Highways in Colorado
Penalties in these cases depend primarily on whether the allegation is charged as the ordinary form of obstructing a highway or as the funeral-related version specifically identified in subsection (3) of the statute. Colorado’s sentencing structure for petty offenses and misdemeanors changed for offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022, so the exact penalty range depends on both the charge and the date of the alleged conduct. The core statute states that an offense under C.R.S. § 18-9-107 is a petty offense, except that knowingly obstructing the entrance into or exit from a funeral or funeral site, or knowingly obstructing a highway or other passageway where a funeral procession is taking place, is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Ordinary Obstructing Highway or Other Passageway Penalty — For offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022, a petty offense is punishable by up to 10 days in jail, a fine of up to $300, or both. Because ordinary obstruction under C.R.S. § 18-9-107 is classified as a petty offense, that is the general maximum sentencing exposure in a standard non-funeral-related case. Even though the offense is lower-level than a misdemeanor, a conviction still creates a criminal record and can carry consequences for employment, professional reputation, immigration matters, and future charging decisions.
Funeral or Funeral Procession Obstruction Penalty — If the prosecution alleges that the defendant knowingly obstructed the entrance into or exit from a funeral or funeral site, or knowingly obstructed a highway or other passageway during a funeral procession, the offense is a class 2 misdemeanor. For offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022, a class 2 misdemeanor carries up to 120 days in jail, a fine of up to $750, or both. That enhancement makes funeral-related obstruction cases significantly more serious than ordinary obstruction cases under the same statute.
Collateral Consequences — Even when the case is charged only as a petty offense, the consequences can extend beyond the sentence itself. A conviction may affect background checks, security clearances, school discipline, professional licensing, immigration status, and a defendant’s credibility in future court proceedings. If the case arose from a protest, demonstration, or highly visible public incident, the reputational damage can be substantial even without lengthy jail exposure.
Case-Specific Aggravating Realities — Prosecutors sometimes file related charges alongside obstructing-highway allegations, such as disorderly conduct, trespass, resisting arrest, obstruction of government operations, or failure to leave premises after request. When that happens, the overall exposure may be far more serious than the penalty for the highway-obstruction count standing alone. For that reason, the defense must evaluate the entire charging package, not just the title of the lead offense.
Defenses to Obstructing Highways Charges
No Actual Obstruction — The statute requires proof that the defendant obstructed a highway or passageway or disobeyed a qualifying order to move. If the roadway or passage remained passable, or if any inconvenience was brief, limited, or not “unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous” under the statutory definition, the prosecution may not be able to meet its burden. Many cases ultimately turn on whether the alleged obstruction was real and legally sufficient, not simply whether someone was standing in a public place.
No Knowing Disobedience of a Reasonable Order — When the prosecution relies on subsection (1)(b), it must prove not just that an order was given, but that the defendant disobeyed a reasonable request or order to move and knew the person issuing it had qualifying authority. In crowd or protest situations, commands may be unclear, not audible, contradictory, or physically impossible to obey immediately. Defense counsel closely examines whether the officer’s order was actually clear, reasonable, and capable of compliance under the circumstances.
Lack of the Required Mental State — Colorado’s statute requires that the conduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. If the defendant was confused, trapped by crowd movement, unaware that they were allegedly causing a blockage, or unable to move as quickly as officers expected, the mental-state element may be weak. In many cases, what the state describes as deliberate obstruction may look much more like confusion, delay, or situational chaos when the full evidence is reviewed.
Protected Activity and Context — Not every public gathering, demonstration, march, or expressive act is criminal. While the First Amendment does not create a blanket defense to blocking traffic, the surrounding expressive context can still matter greatly when analyzing police conduct, prosecutorial overreach, selective enforcement, and the interpretation of what actually happened. Defense counsel must ensure that protected conduct is not being improperly recharacterized as criminal obstruction without adequate proof of the statutory elements.
Order Was Not Lawful or Reasonable — The statute specifically refers to a “reasonable request or order to move.” That wording matters. If the order was arbitrary, inconsistent, not tied to genuine obstruction or public safety, or impossible to follow as given, the defense may challenge whether the statute was satisfied at all.
Insufficient or Conflicting Evidence — Many cases depend heavily on officer testimony, supplemented by body camera footage, bystander video, or generalized descriptions of a crowd. Defense attorneys compare all available evidence carefully to expose exaggeration, inconsistency, or assumptions about what the defendant personally did. The prosecution still carries the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and vague claims about “the crowd” are not enough to convict one specific person.
Role of a Colorado Criminal Defense Attorney
Analyzing Video Evidence in Detail — Obstructing-highway cases often rise or fall on body camera footage, dash camera footage, drone footage, civilian recordings, livestreams, or surveillance video. A defense attorney reviews that material frame by frame to determine where the defendant was, what was blocked, what police said, how the crowd was moving, and whether the prosecution’s version is actually supported by the objective record. In many cases, careful video review exposes that the scene was more fluid and ambiguous than the police report suggests.
Challenging the Statutory Definition of “Obstruct” — The prosecution must prove more than inconvenience in the ordinary sense. The statute defines “obstruct” as rendering passage impassable or rendering passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous. Defense counsel focuses closely on whether the facts truly satisfy that standard, because many cases are overcharged based on assumptions about disruption rather than on proof of legally sufficient obstruction.
Examining the Legality and Reasonableness of Police Orders — If the case is based on an alleged refusal to move, the defense attorney examines who issued the order, whether the defendant could hear it, whether it was directed at the defendant, whether it was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether compliance was realistically possible. A vague or chaotic police command does not automatically support a conviction.
Protecting Constitutional Rights — These cases often arise at the intersection of criminal law and constitutionally protected activity. A defense attorney evaluates whether the stop, detention, arrest, dispersal order, or enforcement pattern raises constitutional issues relating to speech, assembly, due process, equal treatment, or unlawful seizure. Even where those issues do not dispose of the case entirely, they can significantly affect suppression, negotiation, and trial strategy.
Negotiating Reduced Charges Where Appropriate — In some cases, the evidence is weak enough that dismissal is the right target. In others, defense counsel may seek a reduction, diversion-style outcome, or other resolution that avoids the long-term consequences of a contested criminal conviction. Effective negotiation depends on demonstrating precisely where the prosecution’s proof breaks down and why the state should not be confident of conviction.
Trial Representation in Public-Order Cases — If the case proceeds to trial, the defense attorney cross-examines officers, challenges crowd-based assumptions, uses video evidence aggressively, and emphasizes the state’s burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Public-order cases can be emotionally charged and politically colored, which makes disciplined trial advocacy especially important. A strong defense keeps the jury focused on the law and the evidence rather than the atmosphere surrounding the event.
Key Elements the Prosecution Must Prove
To secure a conviction for obstructing a highway or other passageway under C.R.S. § 18-9-107, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
- the defendant acted without legal privilege;
- the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
- the defendant either:
- obstructed a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, building entrance, elevator, aisle, stairway, hallway, or similar place used for passage, or
- disobeyed a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the defendant knew to be a peace officer, firefighter, or someone with authority to control the premises.
If the prosecution is seeking the more serious funeral-related class 2 misdemeanor treatment, it must also prove the specific funeral or funeral-procession circumstances described in subsection (3). Failure to prove any required element requires acquittal on that charge.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is obstructing a highway always a misdemeanor in Colorado?
No. Ordinary obstructing highway or other passageway under C.R.S. § 18-9-107 is generally a petty offense. It becomes a class 2 misdemeanor only in the funeral-related situations specifically described in subsection (3).
Can I be charged even if traffic was still moving a little?
Potentially yes. The statute defines “obstruct” not only as rendering passage impassable, but also as rendering passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous. The real issue is whether the prosecution can prove that standard beyond a reasonable doubt.
What if I did not hear the officer tell me to move?
That can be an important defense issue. If the prosecution relies on disobeying a reasonable order to move, it must prove that the order was actually given, that it was reasonable, and that you knowingly disobeyed it.
Can protest activity lead to this charge?
Yes. These cases often arise in protest or demonstration settings. But the existence of a protest does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation to prove the statutory elements against the specific defendant.
Does a petty offense still matter?
Absolutely. Even a petty offense can create a criminal record, affect background checks, and have serious personal and professional consequences.
Additional Resources
Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-9-107 – Obstructing Highway or Other Passageway — This is the primary statute defining the offense of obstructing a highway or other passageway in Colorado. It sets out the prohibited conduct, defines “obstruct,” and distinguishes between the ordinary petty-offense version of the charge and the more serious funeral-related class 2 misdemeanor version.
Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-1.3-503 – Petty Offense and Civil Infraction Classified — This statute provides the penalty structure for petty offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022, including up to 10 days in jail, a fine of up to $300, or both. It is important for understanding the sentencing exposure in an ordinary obstructing-highway case.
Finding an Obstructing Highways Defense Attorney in Colorado
Obstructing-highway charges may look minor at first glance, but they can carry criminal penalties, public-record consequences, and serious effects on employment, reputation, and future legal matters. They also often arise in emotionally charged environments where police accounts, crowd assumptions, and video evidence must be analyzed carefully rather than accepted at face value. These cases require a defense attorney who will slow the case down, test every element, and challenge overbroad or unsupported accusations.
At the Law Office of Matthew A. Martin, P.C., we defend clients facing misdemeanor, petty offense, and public-order charges throughout Colorado. We investigate thoroughly, challenge weak evidence, and fight to protect your rights and your future.
If you are facing obstructing highways charges in Colorado, call (303) 725-0017 today to schedule your free consultation.