One 11. One time.

You're trying to be a street cop.

Hey, just want to thank all the 78 people that came out to the one-day course.

I hope you guys learned something.

Get some jewelry and weather.

And it was a little bit of the difficult room to speak in.

But hopefully you guys learned

something. We've got some nuggets out of it, and hopefully see some of the guys and the guys and

girls at the May 18th course or the June 13th to 14th two-day course. If you guys really don't

get that next level game up to where you need to be or where you want to be in police work,

come to the two-day course.

It's excellent.

But today I'm going to jump on here and just talk about State v. Camilla versus State v. Perlstein. We had a member of the group who asked a question in a previous thread. And I think you got both of them confused. I'm going to just to try to clear this up. And if he had confusion and anybody else has confusion, I wanted to make sure that I address this properly.

So here's what Steve versus Camillo said, 2005, merely refusing

to answer a police officer's question and failing to provide their name, date of birth, and

social security number to an officer who required the information to prepare an incident report

does not constitute obstructing on 2C291.

The language of 2C29A1 is clear.

I'm sorry, 1A is clear.

It requires obstruction be by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle.

We know that obstructions only charge with a physical act.

Somebody lying about their name would not constitute obstruction.

...