imported post
Note in the annotations that refusal to provide a name, or silence, is not obstruction. Also look at the last interesting citation which states the police must be acting lawfully at the time, i.e., in accordance with the state and federal constitutions.
946.41(2m) Whoever violates sub. (1) under all of the following circumstances
is guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) The violator gives false information or places physical evidence
with intent to mislead an officer.
(b) At a criminal trial, the trier of fact considers the false information
or physical evidence.
(c) The trial results in the conviction of an innocent person.
(3) Whoever by violating this section hinders, delays or prevents
an officer from properly serving or executing any summons
or civil process, is civilly liable to the person injured for any actual
loss caused thereby and to the officer or the officer’s superior for
any damages adjudged against either of them by reason thereof.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1983 a. 189; 1989 a. 121; 1993 a. 486; 2001 a. 109.
The state must prove that the accused knew that the officer was acting in an official
capacity and knew that the officer was acting with lawful authority when the accused
allegedly resisted or obstructed the officer. State v. Lossman, 118 Wis. 2d 526, 348
N.W.2d 159 (1984).
Knowingly providing false information with intent to mislead is obstruction as a
matter of law. State v. Caldwell, 154 Wis. 2d 683, 454 N.W.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1990).
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or
her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
Fleeing and hiding from an officer may constitute obstructing. State v. Grobstick,
200 Wis. 2d 242, 546 N.W.2d 494 (1996), 94−1045.
There is no exculpatory denial exception under this section. The statute criminalizes
all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. The
state should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false
statements with intent to mislead the police and not out of a good−faith attempt to
defend against accusations of a crime. The latter can never include the former. State
v. Reed, 2005 WI 53, 280 Wis. 2d 68, 695 N.W.2d 315, 03−1781.
“Lawful authority,” as that term is used in sub. (1), requires that police conduct be
in compliance with both the federal and state constitutions, in addition to any applicable
statutes. State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ____ N.W.2d ___,
07−2095.
