NJ Obstruction & Hindering Defense Lawyer

Charges arising during an investigation or arrest often sound similar but require different conduct and different mental states. Obstruction, hindering, resisting arrest, and eluding should not be treated as interchangeable.

Obstructing Administration of Law

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1, the State generally must prove:

the defendant acted purposely;
the defendant obstructed, impaired, or perverted the administration of law or another governmental function, or prevented or attempted to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function; and
the defendant used one of the means identified by the statute, such as flight, intimidation, force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, or an independently unlawful act.

The statute does not criminalize every refusal to cooperate. It requires affirmative interference of the type the statute identifies.

Authority: N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1.

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3 contains separate provisions for hindering another person and hindering oneself.

Hindering Another

The State generally must prove:

a purpose to hinder another person’s detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction, or punishment; and
one of the prohibited acts identified by the statute, such as harboring the person, providing means of escape, concealing or destroying evidence, warning of impending discovery, obstructing another by force, intimidation, or deception, helping protect or profit from criminal proceeds, or giving qualifying false information to law enforcement.

Hindering Oneself

The State generally must prove a purpose to hinder the defendant’s own detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction, or punishment, together with one of the specific acts set out in subsection (b). Those acts include certain forms of evidence concealment or destruction, force or intimidation, interference with witnesses, and qualifying false information.

Authority: N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.

Resisting Arrest

At the basic level, the State generally must prove that the defendant purposely prevented or attempted to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest.

Flight can elevate the offense under the statute.
Use or threatened use of physical force or violence, or creating a substantial risk of physical injury, can increase the grading further.

The statute provides that unlawfulness of the arrest is not itself a defense if the officer acted under color of official authority and announced the intention to arrest before the resistance.

Authority: N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a).

Eluding

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b), the State generally must prove:

the defendant was operating a motor vehicle or vessel;
a police or law-enforcement officer gave a signal to bring it to a full stop; and
the defendant knowingly fled or attempted to elude the officer after receiving that signal.

If the flight creates a risk of death or injury to another person, the grading can increase.

Authority: N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b).

What the Defense Looks At

These cases often turn on whether the accused knew an arrest or stop was being attempted, whether police were performing a lawful official function where the statute requires it, whether conduct was affirmative interference rather than noncooperation, whether a statement was actually false and material to the hindering theory, and what video or audio shows about the timing of commands and conduct.

Legal sources. The summaries on this page are based on the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice and New Jersey Model Criminal Jury Charges. They are general explanations, not substitutes for reviewing the exact charge, indictment, complaint, and current law applicable to a particular case.