Cited by

We further observe that, while Daly relies on State v. Morin to argue that his conduct did not constitute obstruction for purposes of a taint analysis, the defendant in Morin “did not direct any physical activity at the responding officers that could have obstructed their investigation and did not say anything to them.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

We have narrowly interpreted the language in section 609.50 , subdivision 1(2), “to proscribe conduct directed at [a] [law-enforcement] officer that obstructs, resists, or interferes with the [law-enforcement] officer in the performance of official duties.” (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

-96 (Minn. App. 2007) (fleeing police officer on foot), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

(“Fleeing a police officer, although a physical act, is of a significantly different nature from obstructing or resisting a police officer.”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

6 performance of official duties under the statute.” State v. Morin , review denied (Minn. Sept.

“Hot pursuit” means “some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry in and about the public streets.” State v. Morin , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.

State v. Lohnes , 6 review denied (Minn. Sept.

State v. Lohnes , State v. Morin , review denied (Minn. Sept.

review denied (Minn. June 26, 2007); review denied (Minn. Nov.

review denied (Minn. Sept.

1(2), narrowly and stated that “the statute applies only to conduct directed at police officers engaged in the performance of official duties.” review denied (Minn. Sept.

-61 (Minn.2001) (affirming a conviction where appellant attempted to escape from the back of a squad car after being arrested); Shimota, d at 365 (affirming a conviction where appellant resisted an officer’s attempt to remove her from a car for a field sobriety test); (holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.50 , subd.

review denied (Minn. Sept.