Judi Patrizi v. Scott Huff, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18082

Patrizi, an attorney, was arrested at Bounce nightclub by Huff and Connole for obstructing official business under Cleveland Ordinance § 615.06(A) during an inquiry into an assault.
The officers’ investigation targeted Mills; Patrizi intervened by asking questions and identifying herself as an attorney.
There are conflicting accounts: the police report depicts Patrizi as commanding Mills and gesturing toward Connole; Patrizi says she asked questions calmly and did not defy instructions.
Video evidence reportedly contradicts some police statements, showing no finger-pointing or arm-swinging as described in the report.
Patrizi was charged, but the charges were dismissed; she filed § 1983 and state-law claims; the district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity, which the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause existed to arrest Patrizi for obstructing official business	Patrizi did not perform an unlawful act; no clear obstruction	Patrizi’s questioning and conduct impeded the officers’ duties	Lacked probable cause; no affirmative act or obstructive purpose established
Whether Patrizi’s conduct constituted an affirmative act under the statute	Speech can satisfy the act element if aimed at impeding the officer	Patrizi’s conduct interfered with police work	Patrizi’s conduct did not constitute an affirmative act
Whether Patrizi acted with the purpose to obstruct the investigation	Patrizi sought to protect Mills’ rights, not impede	Her questions and intervention were obstructive	No clear evidence of purpose to obstruct; not shown to impede investigation
Whether the law at the time clearly established lack of probable cause	Ohio law supported Patrizi’s non-obstructive conduct	Officer reasonable belief of obstruction possible given context	Clearly established that officers lacked probable cause

Lyons v. City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2005) (establishes that obstruction requires an affirmative act impeding duties)
City of North Ridgeville v. Reichbaum, 677 N.E.2d 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (three-part test for obstruction; focus on act and purpose)
State v. Wellman, 879 N.E.2d 215 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (speech can satisfy act element if it disrupts investigation)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (First Amendment limits; protected verbal criticism of police)
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (retaliatory arrest context; not controlling here but informs speech protection)