Argument or silence is not obstruction

THE REFUSAL to provide booking information upon arrest does not constitute resistance or obstruction, according to the Illinois Supreme Court in an October 17 ruling in People v. Ronald Jerome Weathington.

The case centered on Weathington's booking upon arrest for aggravated battery in a 1978 incident in Champaign. Weathington first refused to provide any information, later provided some information and, after being placed in a holding cell, provided all of the information. He was then charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer.

Weathington was convicted by jury on both charges in Champaign County Circuit Court, but the trial court vacated the battery conviction. On appeal of the obstruction charge, the Fourth District Appellate Court reversed the circuit court, vacating the resistance conviction. The state appealed, but the high court upheld the appellate court.

Weathington argued that his constitutional right to remain silent prohibits his prosecution for failure to provide booking information upon arrest. He also argued that failure to provide booking information does not constitute resistance.

On the right to remain silent, Justice William G. Clark quoted the appellate court: "[i]t would be incongruent to say that one may remain silent and yet must provide 'booking' information" (76 111. App. 3d 173, 177).

On resistance, Clark said, "We think that in these circumstances, where the defendant merely argued with the officer as to when he would answer the booking questions and then, after an indefinite but certainly a brief time, did answer the questions, no offense took place. No physical act of resistance or obstruction occurred; merely agrument coupled with eventual cooperation."

Clark said, however, ". . . we need not decide . . . whether an activity falling between mere argument and a physical act could constitute a violation. . . ."□

January 1981/Illinois Issues/32