And if that's the statute alleged to have been violated, there should have been evidence that some specific person actually attempted to pass, but was prevented from having done so. Evidence in support of each of the elements of the offense would have had to have been presented. My guess is that there was none and the case was dismissed, which is why the civil suit was filed. When I read the article, I thought, why is their case so overcomplicated that the judge was able to use their own pleadings against them? I have to confess, I'm somewhat skeptical of the quality of the lawyering here. I hope the plaintiffs were given leave to amend their pleadings and that they'll have someone competent to do that for them. I also suspect that they may have sued under the wrong causes of action. And all the cops needed was a defense sufficient to show they had probable cause to detain.