trial the facts essentially were that he was a dollar man or a council member and can all the way there was an election coming up the next tuesday the budget was supposed to be available for the public to see police to tell him to get out of an area of city hall where he was calling people in and then having news media arrive to show the fees budgets for city mayor in a box on the other side of a piece office where there was a part time person who had her desk there she was not they were that day and so you had to walk through this sort of part time persons office all the way in order to get to you're looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution in this case there was some evidence to the public was not allowed in those two offices so only at all times but i don't think there was a lot the court noted the standard ip and instruction doesn't cover this kind of a situation where a judge refused to answer a jury's questions about does it have to be physical or not and even though in the mccoy case prosecutor misled the jury about whether or not resisting head the physical even though all those things that happened in the case  request for this jury instruction was denied and so the jury never have the benefit of any discussion about how well you do have the ability to argue with police at least to some extent the part that he wrote accurately state of the law and that in your two of you when i went along in the court case on this panel that they accurately state of the law in our reading of mccoy and so recognized that until the illinois supreme core make some decisions in the syrian it's a very confusing area of the law for warriors and judges and you can imagine what it's like for jurors because of the latter that instruction we'd like to take this r seems to me i mean do we have an argument with the police or do we know just the refusal to remove one cell phone request please i think we have an argument with the police and that argument even ask the score for permission to supplement the record and then she did send the the v d we're sort of like in this case in that sense i think though that there is this d v d that documents to you advance in question as they something physical and so in light of all of these cases the which law or discussed in the mccoy decision justice partners part of the decision we believe that there's been too much of what i would like to call sort of a right we're ratchet now on the resisting stance you in the law where now we reach the point where prosecutors are trying to convict people of resisting when there was no touching whatsoever the officer never touched the defendant in the defendant never touched the officer in the situation and the when the officer asked him believe this area and to stop talking about the  budget he did not leave right away but easing time the officer never tried to touch his elbow only the mouth or anything or any of the other factors that you see in the resisting cases where there was some kind of physical resistance either by going live or by actually trying to you know slug or whatever none of that happens here because there's no there's no touching either way and in fact when the officer says well let's go my client goes available with city hall so you went down there with his wife having a video camera and started filming his questioning of people why isn't the budget available and in fact it was available because you can see the budget sitting there on the other side of this glass and this boxes in the bases because of the chief of police is to stop him didn't like him asking all these questions and in fairness i mean it's both the city officials start peeling away in the process though the ones who are in charge of the budget like a budget director in the phrase or they end up leaving those rooms exactly exactly and then so listening to the situation this is hardly the kind of situation where you want to allow the right were rash of the lawyer for her to resist the statute to say that this is resisting a peace officer to at least two to demonstrate some of this is the agreement with the police officer about whether you should have to leave this area or not it's it's not a situation for anybody's life sitting down little of the intersection of randolph in the saddle and chicago which was what happened in one of the cases  of if they had their pleading requirements would have been stronger if they had alleged up struction that is the law or case i think that their pleading requirements greater to allege more facts in the information if they're alleging abstraction but let's say that they had it alleged obstructing a peace officer by remaining in the area or possibly but i think there would have to be a lot of facts alleged in the information and then that information would have to be tested under all these cases and you know why i'm having so much trouble answering  why i went back to the united states supreme court in my grief and and showed how this resisting language was the interpretive first by the alamo it towards based on what the before all this writing word ratchet happened what the terms really mean back of the title and the statute was passed and they did require physical acts in the d c case a lady inspectors came to her house and she refused to open he door for the inspectors and then she was charged with resisting peace officers when she wouldn't open her own over and you can if you don't go back and look at all that then you opinions out there and it's hard to make any sense out of it but you can pick and choose if you're a prosecutor to the point where now we have a case where there's no touching at all and quite different than all the other cases where there's nothing going on and then you have a was private although it was frequently open to the public at the time and wage defendant was physically remaining there and refusing to go all the employees had left the offices were all locked there was no one left and i could have possibly been talking did official responsible for making sure that the ordinances are upheld and followed that he knew that he didn't take that into consideration when that first was being charged for that he's unauthorized to  a building where employee should be at three thirty in the actually it is true that he isn't all there and elected official but nobody was going to have the authority to be in that area when no employees were around he wasn't arrested for asking for a copy of the budget it didn't matter what he was there to do after police officers needed to secure the area and who has the authority to tell police officers that they are to secure an area in a public building  and and that act most tender interrupt through vent or delay the performance of an officer's activity you send merely saying i'm not leaving i'm not leaving wouldn't be enough if you had actually been walking away alone you had said that it was important that you stand there combined with repeatedly announcing his i don't know why those individuals went home for the actions that are important here are the actions of the police officer there was nothing the police officer could have done to get the budget for the crime so the finite fighting with the police officer woodrell they couldn't leave him there was he was they didn't know what he would do the officers testified that they didn't know what you could and would do he could've gone through the pension least as he could of he wouldn't allow anyone to remain in that area  when when there was no one there they would jump over to the budget director and testify that he thought that maybe defendant would break in the window to his office in order to get  speculation i mean that anybody if there's a possibility that anybody can do something and right there's a possibility that anyone could do something which is why the area was private and closed off when the employees were in there because they that was the issue here they would have also been arrested all the officers stood by right next to defend them when he was in the public hallway well defined i had numerous conversations with city officials and also with the television media and the print media about the availability of the budget they did not in any way try to stop me from asking this question and they only tried to steer the office area after that there is nothing they can do to answer those questions because they're just doing their jobs and defender was never told he had to leave them cleanly he could have waited in from the decision in code where resisting was alleged in a code of somebody who refused to open a door for police at a restaurant when there was a runaway child  obstructionist and so you do have this distinction that does need to be drawn in our case resisting was what was charged there was no effort to secure that area where that part time pen close the door unlock it so that the public could be allowed to be in this little room is the empty room or call it whatever you want to call it the in the rape case which was situation like we do in this case that you should give a jury instruction so the jury won't be informed about what the law is about our human being different from resisting and again we would like the opportunity to go back with the end of a jury instruction taken right out of them according to taste in retry this case or the core of the under judgment for my client because there wasn't any evidence of touching here and so there was no active physical resistance whether you want to call it passive or whatever you know robi robi is the case that i've been talking about about in the middle of the intersection in chicago it was a corner of the cell and randolph in chicago and the court did talk about passive resistance in their case about how when they tried to move the people out of the intersection they went limp and that was the that kind of physical act could constitute resistance i don't think that there's ever been a case that has approved their resistance conviction where there was no touching at all and i haven't been able to find one and so we would ask you that to a lot of this rightward reaction to the law or even if you do say there was enough evidence to convict in this case we'd like the opportunity to go back and have a jury that's properly