PL 195.05: Obstructing Governmental Administration in New York

PL 195.05 is the charge that gets added when an arrest does not go smoothly, and it has a built-in weakness that most people never hear about: the officer must have been performing an authorized function. If the underlying police action was unlawful, this charge fails as a matter of law. If you have been charged, call Hochhauser Criminal & DWI Defense at 516-939-1529.

PL 195.05 penalties

The three elements of PL 195.05

New York’s pattern jury instruction breaks the offense into three parts, and the third is the one to focus on:

• You prevented, or attempted to prevent, a public servant from performing an official function;
• You did so intentionally, by intimidation, physical force or interference, or by an independently unlawful act; and
• The official function was authorized.

That third element was added to the standard charge because the case law required it. It is not an affirmative defense you have to raise — it is an element the People must prove.

Words alone are not enough

This is the second structural limit, and it disposes of a great many of these cases. New York courts have held consistently that mere words do not satisfy the statute. The interference has to be, at least in part, physical. Yelling at officers, cursing at them, questioning them, filming an arrest, and refusing to answer questions are not obstruction — and vulgar, defiant statements have specifically been held insufficient.

Even walking away, or running, has been held not to satisfy the requirement of physical interference with an investigation. Passive non-compliance — going limp, simply not moving — is a genuine litigation issue for the same reason, because the statute demands affirmative physical interference rather than a failure to help.

Why an unlawful arrest defeats the charge

Because authorization is an element, PL 195.05 is uniquely vulnerable when it is charged alongside a stop that does not hold up. If the detention lacked reasonable suspicion or the arrest lacked probable cause, the officer was not performing an authorized function, and the obstruction count cannot stand.

The practical consequence is that the suppression motion does double duty. The same record built to challenge the stop supports the trial defense on this charge — and winning the hearing frequently disposes of the obstruction count outright.

Other defenses

• No intent to obstruct. Reflexive movement, confusion, or reacting to being grabbed is not an intentional effort to prevent an official function.
• The function was not “official.”
• De minimis interference that did not actually impair anything.
• Facial insufficiency where the accusatory instrument alleges only words, or describes conduct in conclusory terms.
• Body-worn camera. These cases are frequently charged from a narrative that the footage does not support. Demand it and preserve it immediately.

PL 195.05 rarely arrives alone. It usually travels with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, or an assault count where an officer reports an injury sustained during a takedown. Those counts share the same authorization weakness.

Where these cases are heard on Long Island

This charge is filed considerably more often in Suffolk than in Nassau. We handle it across Nassau County and Suffolk County.

PL 195.05 frequently asked questions

I only argued with the officer.

Then the charge should not stand. New York courts have been clear that words alone do not satisfy this statute — there must be physical interference or an independently unlawful act.

I was filming the arrest.

Recording police in public is not obstruction. If that is what the accusation actually describes, the accusatory instrument is vulnerable on its face.

What if the arrest itself was unlawful?

Then an element fails. The People must prove the officer was performing an authorized function, and an unlawful stop or arrest is not one.

Can this be reduced?

Frequently, to disorderly conduct, which is a violation rather than a crime — particularly in a first-offense case where the physical conduct alleged is thin.

Speak with a Long Island defense lawyer

Richard Hochhauser defends obstruction cases in Nassau and Suffolk County District Court. These charges are often added to justify an encounter rather than to describe one, and the body camera plus a suppression hearing is usually how that becomes clear.

This page provides general information about PL 195.05 in New York and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Contacting our firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.