prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his lying to the officer initially about his identity materially impeded the officers investigation or his ability to execute the warrant for  instructed in this case that it was almost like there was no other option but to find the defendant guilty because the statute talks about intent to prevent the effort and she and her struck the prosecution and you make a false statement to the police mr taylor actually admitted that he initially lied to the officer i think though that the case people be co managed if i'm pronouncing that correctly is about the whereabouts of his law his wife also that he was driving the van that the police had actually seen his wife driving and in that case the court also said is that when you're talking about obstructing think that davis wouldn't survive the analysis and baskerville because of the fact that there is now this element that the courts have imposed on both of struck a peace officer and obstructing justice that you have to actually interfere with the but i think davis is wrong in so far as it seems to just ignore the fact that in co managed did want to speak or it did in fact not just talk about what is concealed but also specifically set you are not guilty of obstructing justice unless you actually interfere with the administration of justice now i think to better explain what that means or what the definition means we can take a look at the cases that were discussed in chunky substance try to retrieve it from the defendant's mouth and instead the defendant's swallow so at their morning the officer called for a medical transport they took the defendant to the hospital they induced many and they were able to recover the bag that way but what they said in their case and i believe also in co manage the standard they were fighting was did the actions of the defendant make the officers ability to execute his job  well it certainly was something that justice thomas brought up in his descent in coal mine in which he made that very point in dissent saying well just because the officers in that case did a good job and were able to recover the contraband that the defendant threw over the fence shouldn't make him not guilty of obstructing justice because he was looking solely at the defendant's intent but i think you do have to look at the success i to correct they were not at all saying that he had free license to lie about his identity but certainly with the fact that you have to show a material struction that did not exist here  think that he couldn't be guilty because the police were successful in doing what they needed to do but in this case the defendant could have a felony conviction simply because he made a statement that was alive so i think that the court is trying to interpret my just of intent to swallow the say that the legislature could have intended to convict someone of a felony simply for making an effort that isn't successful where the police officers are still able to carry out their intention of releasing him and it was really just kind of a good place between him for a few minutes and then he did exactly what he intended to do which was taken into custody more and so yes he did say he wasn't was he just wanted to know to admit who he was and it was just kind of pushing him to admit didn't actually and getting into mit in kind of a trick tricky way but i don't think there's any issue that he was not going to execute the warrant in a certainly took less than ten minutes for the entire transaction so with respect to this particular felony conviction there wasn't a showing  this i was looking through my notes and the defense attorneys closing argument she this really wasn't fake the argument she was trying to make that she really didn't obstruct the officer the officer knew who it was but i think the problem arose because the way the jury was instructed did not include this element to the right so with this year and i said this conviction be reversed thank you thank you questions in in this case they said the defendant wasn't guilty because yes he didn't answer the questions but in the circumstances there he answered them period within a very short period of text wasn't really i think the thing i think with to really talk to to that to this situation and it considers the circumstances the defendant is not going anywhere because he's booked he's just taken these in the officer let's just get this over isn't like booking these he has this it took ten minutes it is a citizen and you're not done at all taylor you don't expect it to take a very long time and i think there's a lot of stress because the option to get it right since when has to stevens's talking about the language and baskerville about the tendency and so on that's in the context of addressing whether a false statement is required can be obstructing justice whether physical act is required so the court said yes you can obstruct justice by providing a false statement but again it has to actually impede it has to materially impede and i think actually the legislature is they would interpret what the legislature is intent was in both commercial baskerville and saying wielding the legislature intended to impose liability for obstructing a peace officer or felony liability for obstructing justice without this materiality requirement and figured there is a statute that was passed by the legislature effective january first of twenty ten abstracting identification which basically makes it a performance and i disagree then this case this officer might have left a no go in fact i think what was going to happen was he was trying to decide whether he should charge them now with a felony or misdemeanor even in his own testimony he says to deny listen you're going to be arrested for giving us false information i know you're doing now so i think the back and forth really went to am i going to do more than take into c the right right that he was going to let the known go and in fact he says he didn't even get his identity from him until after the place had already taken the no into custody and placement squad apparently found his identity card at the police station so i don't think that it was an issue about whether he wasn't going to be able to execute this war in his mind it was should i charged now with this felony and the crime they're releasing when would there be an obstructing