the obstruction charge is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt seconds that alternatively the obstruction charge should be remaining for a new trial because the jury was presented with two alternative bases for finding the subject of guilty and at least one of to prove to be obstruction charge beyond a reasonable doubt obstructing obstructing requires that a person not only of struct a police officer is authorized staff and the illinois supreme court rabbi has warning but they also went on to say that simply not opening a door is not enough for the crime of strutting in fact in hilton byrne the this court held that the defendant in actions should they are that my wife is living in florida when in fact she was still living in his house in illinois so in that case or was it that the senate in michigan in contact with the police you know for me making this misrepresentation that my wife lives in defendant did not know about the warrants he did not know that these even if you knew where his girlfriend was that she was located in the bathroom he didn't know that his answers were in any way the laying off of rice back because again he did not know that the police were conducting an authorized that for all he knew they simply broke into his house and were asking him questions moreover even if he had known about the warrant the simply refusing to answer questions again doesn't rise to the level of officers question was health not to qualify and not to the step level of the physical act so in this case both of the physical both of the actions that are charged both in the earth pupils are simply not a just charged here it is obstructing and what's necessary is to prove this physical act and again neither of these two refusals can reach that level thus the state sargon it really is essentially testimony they never mentioned anything about the warrant and so based on this and based on simply knowing the definition of what i was struck team is and that these allegations these two obstructing and his attorney should have realized that the state did not have grounds to arrest him for this and thus the which way not should have been suppressed on that basis and be needed for obstructing would simply be doing or not doing something and in some way to laze the police officers from their duty of striking would occur time a person who in fact didn't do all they could as soon as they possibly could the physical act wasn't required then every refusal to help the police officer under section thirty one eight would also be obstructing because the physical act would not be required for obstructing and simply not doing something thirty one one which is again in the class a misdemeanor conviction of stroking a peace officer for these reasons if the physical act is required importantly it's also important to no looking especially i think looking at the jury instructions for obstruction that is instructive in finding that the proposition has to be that the people involved are actually pe officers that the defendant knew that they were peace officers which relates back to the additional to be peace officers and that he knowingly resisted or obstructed the performance any innocent or inadvertent behavior and i think that addresses what council is concerned with that any single time you don't jump at officers your class you're going to be guilty of obstruction and courts would not find that should be obstruction as opposed to you're being asked for trying to do something or for fifteen times or fifteen minutes and you're continually refusing it's gives the presence it did not explicitly state that they had a have probable cause to believe that he was obstructing their service of the war and as there is no actual physical action required would refuse to let a police officer in stare house refuse to open a door to the police officer or else it would be in danger of facing an obstruction charge because they would know that they're dealing a police ability to walk away from a police officer because it's possible that they're doing an authorized act and if it doesn't matter what i know then the defendant's really at the mercy of facts that they