State v. E.J.J., 354 P.3d 815

Background

Police responded to a 911 call about an intoxicated, agitated juvenile (R.J.); officers escorted R.J. 10–15 feet from the house and attempted to calm her.
E.J.J., R.J.’s brother, left the house, stood on the porch/doorway area, and objected when he saw an officer reach for what he perceived as a nightstick.
Officers repeatedly ordered E.J.J. to return inside and to close the solid inner door; he initially complied but then stood in the open doorway behind the wrought-iron screen door and repeatedly reopened the solid door.
During the 10–15 minute interaction E.J.J. yelled, used profanity, and called officers abusive names; an officer warned he could be arrested for obstruction and ultimately arrested him for obstructing a law enforcement officer under RCW 9A.76.020(1).
Juvenile court convicted E.J.J.; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the conviction could have been based solely on protected speech and reversed, dismissing charges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCW 9A.76.020(1) can constitutionally support a conviction based solely on abusive speech toward officers	E.J.J.: conviction invalid as applied because record permits conviction based on protected speech alone	State: conviction valid because E.J.J. engaged in obstructive conduct (approaching scene, refusing orders to leave/close door, causing delay)	Reversed and dismissed — insufficient evidence of non-speech conduct; speech here is protected and could have been the basis of the conviction
Whether mere presence or approach to scene, without physical interference, can constitute obstruction	E.J.J.: mere presence and verbal criticism are protected; presence alone insufficient	State: approach and presence escalated the situation and constituted hindering conduct	Court: mere presence/approach without physical interference insufficient to prove obstruction
Whether refusal to obey repeated orders (to return/close door) mixed with verbal abuse constitutes conduct supporting obstruction	E.J.J.: refusal intertwined with protected speech; cannot sustain conviction absent clear non-speech conduct	State: repeated refusal after warnings and escalation supports obstructive conduct	Court: record shows the conviction may have rested on speech intertwined with refusal; evidence of independent conduct insufficient
Whether minor delay or inconvenience to officers justifies arrest for obstruction when speech is involved	E.J.J.: slight delay/inconvenience cannot justify arrest for obstruction where speech is central	State: escorting E.J.J. back and delay were operational impacts	Court: minor delay/inconvenience alone cannot justify criminalizing speech; First Amendment protection prevails

Key Cases Cited

Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969) (reversal required where record could show conviction rested on protected speech alone)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (ordinance criminalizing verbal interruption of police invalid; citizens may verbally challenge police without risking arrest)
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965) (conduct intertwined with expression may be regulated; speech does not immunize unlawful conduct)
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949) (speech used as an integral part of unlawful conduct may be regulated)
State v. Williams, 171 Wn.2d 474 (2011) (Washington requires conduct in addition to pure speech to sustain obstruction conviction)
State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 (1982) (earlier obstruction statute portions overbroad; courts must narrow construction to require conduct)
State v. Williamson, 84 Wn. App. 37 (1996) (giving a false name was speech and insufficient alone to sustain obstruction)