Judge Philip Goglas
Syska moved pretrial to dismiss as facially insufficient charges of resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. The factual allegations of Syska’s interference with a police probe contained in the misdemeanor information was that Syska tried to push past deponent in an effort to avoid answering questions, and was screaming “Do you have a warrant?” The court noted Syska had a fundamental right to refuse to answer questions and had a right to demand to see a warrant before allowing police into the premises. It stated the information did not allege Syska tried to push past the officer to try and block entry to the premises. The court ruled the accusatory instrument did not provide non-hearsay allegation establishing every element of the offense charged and Syska’s commission of it. It stated the information did not support the accusation that Syska obstructed the police investigation by her actions, granting dismissal of the obstruction charge. Also, the court found the resisting arrest charge was deficient on its face as it rested on the validity of the underlying obstruction charge, and the necessary element of resisting an “authorized arrest” was now lacking. Therefore, it granted dismissal of the charge.