Parma v. Odolecki
2017 Ohio 2979
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Douglas Odolecki (self-described journalist/activist) was charged in two incidents for obstructing official business, disorderly conduct, and misconduct at the scene of an emergency; cases were consolidated and tried to a jury.
- June 13, 2014: At a Parma OVI checkpoint, Odolecki stood on a nearby corner with a sign reading "Checkpoint Ahead — Turn Now" and vocally warned motorists; officers told him to remove "turn now," he refused, and was arrested for obstruction.
- July 29, 2015: Odolecki approached and filmed a police response to a 17‑year‑old suicidal, autistic male on a bridge; officers asked him to leave after his presence and conduct aggravated the subject and family; he refused and was arrested for obstruction, disorderly conduct, and misconduct at an emergency scene.
- Trial: Jury convicted Odolecki of all counts; he was sentenced to 240 days in jail.
- On appeal, the court vacated the June 13, 2014 obstruction conviction (insufficient evidence that his sign constituted an overt act to obstruct officers or that warned drivers were engaged in illegal activity) but affirmed all convictions arising from July 29, 2015 (recording then intrusive, loud, and distracting conduct that hampered officers at an emergency).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warning motorists of an OVI checkpoint constitutes obstruction of official business | City: sign and warnings impeded checkpoint operations by diverting vehicles and thwarting the officers’ purpose | Odolecki: sign and speech were protected First Amendment activity and did not actually hamper officers | Reversed — insufficient evidence that sign/warnings were an overt act to obstruct or that warned drivers were engaged in illegal activity; conviction vacated |
| Whether filming police at an active crisis is protected conduct that precludes obstruction/misconduct charges | City: Odolecki’s conduct (entering scene, refusing to leave, loud/profane behavior) distracted officers and hampered response to an emergency | Odolecki: recording is protected speech/press activity and he was exercising privilege as a journalist | Affirmed — jury reasonably found his close, obnoxious, and distracting conduct knowingly hampered officers at an emergency; convictions upheld |
| Whether disorderly conduct conviction (profane/loud speech) was barred by First Amendment | City: speech was offensive, loud, and alarmed/annoyed family and interfered with emergency response | Odolecki: language was protected political/journalistic speech | Affirmed — court treated it as disruptive conduct (not merely protected speech); Hoffman fighting-words/annoyance framework applied and evidence supported conviction |
| Admissibility of compilation video of other incidents under Evid. R. 404(B) | City: video relevant to intent/knowledge and not unduly prejudicial | Odolecki: unrelated videos were other-acts evidence improperly used to show propensity | Harmless error (if any) — admission did not affect verdict when viewed against total evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (recognizing constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints under balancing test)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (articulating balancing test for seizures relevant to checkpoint analysis)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (no special First Amendment right of access for press beyond public generally)
- Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (First Amendment protects verbal challenge/criticism of police; ordinances must be narrowly tailored)
- Patrizi v. Huff, 690 F.3d 459 (6th Cir.) (nonaggressive questioning/criticism of police may be protected; context matters for obstruction)
- State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio Supreme Court upholding checkpoints with constitutional guideposts)