If you were cited or arrested in Spokane for “Pedestrian Interference” during a protest, you may not have even known such a crime existed. That’s not unusual. Unlike more familiar offenses such as disorderly conduct or obstructing, “pedestrian interference” is a broadly written local ordinance that is often unfamiliar to the public. Yet in recent years it has increasingly appeared in protest-related arrests. As a defense attorney in Spokane, I have defended protestors charged under this ordinance. These cases often raise serious First Amendment concerns.
What Is Pedestrian Interference in Spokane?
Spokane Municipal Code makes it a crime to obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The language is broad. In essence, it prohibits standing, sitting, lying, or placing objects in a way that blocks passage on sidewalks, streets, or other public ways. On paper, that sounds reasonable. Cities do have authority to regulate traffic flow and public safety. But the key issue is how the law is applied. Public streets and sidewalks are traditional public forums under the First Amendment. Political protest (even loud, inconvenient, or unpopular protest) receives the highest level of constitutional protection. The government may impose reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions, but it cannot single out speakers because of their message, nor can it stretch broadly worded ordinances into tools for suppressing protected speech.
In one recent Spokane case I litigated, a protestor standing in a bike lane holding a flag was arrested for pedestrian/vehicular interference. Body camera footage and reports revealed that officers were focused on the content of the protest message and the potential reaction of others — not on actual obstruction. The record showed the protestor was not blocking cyclists and was not standing in the travel lane. The arrest raised fundamental questions about selective enforcement and viewpoint discrimination.
Why These Cases Matter
Courts have long recognized that some degree of inconvenience is inherent in protest. Demonstrations slow traffic. They attract attention. They make people uncomfortable. That does not make them criminal. Federal courts have held that even raucous or angry protests that delay traffic remain protected speech unless they cross the line into true obstruction, violence, or incitement. The “clear and present danger” standard requires more than annoyance or disruption.
When pedestrian interference is charged in protest settings, several constitutional questions arise:
- Was there actual obstruction?
- Was the enforcement content-neutral?
- Were others engaged in similar conduct treated differently?
- Was the arrest supported by probable cause independent of the protest message?
How Spokane’s Ordinance Differs from Other States
Many states have general obstruction or disorderly conduct statutes. But Spokane’s municipal code — like some city-level ordinances nationwide — gives officers significant discretion in defining what counts as “interference.”
Here are some key distinctions:
1. Broad Local Language vs. Narrow State Statutes
In many states, obstruction statutes require proof of substantial interference or physical blocking. Some jurisdictions require that a person “intentionally and unreasonably” obstruct traffic.
Spokane’s ordinance, like several municipal codes across the country, is written more broadly and can be triggered by conduct that arguably causes only minimal delay. That breadth increases the risk of discretionary enforcement.
2. Interaction with First Amendment Jurisprudence
Washington courts tend to take First Amendment protections seriously, and Washington’s constitution sometimes provides broader speech protections than the federal baseline. That matters.
In contrast, some states have recently passed protest-specific “critical infrastructure” laws or enhanced penalties for blocking highways. Those laws are often explicit about targeting roadway blockages during demonstrations. Spokane’s ordinance is not protest-specific, but its generality can make it a flexible tool in protest policing.
3. Selective Enforcement Concerns
Across the country, courts have scrutinized whether obstruction laws are applied evenly. If parade participants, permitted events, or large public gatherings are allowed to occupy streets while spontaneous protestors are arrested for similar conduct, that disparity may raise constitutional concerns.
In Spokane, like elsewhere, police must apply pedestrian interference laws in a content-neutral manner. Enforcement decisions motivated by disagreement with a protest message violate the First Amendment.
4. Use of Surveillance and Crowd Control Tactics
In protest-related arrests, issues often extend beyond the ordinance itself. Use of tactical units or aerial surveillance, can become part of the factual and constitutional analysis.
In the case I referenced above, police reports documented the use of tactical crowd management teams and drone surveillance during a downtown protest. The broader policing context can matter when evaluating whether enforcement was genuinely about safety — or about silencing speech.
What To Do If You Are Charged
If you were cited or arrested for pedestrian interference during a protest:
- Do not assume the charge is minor.
- Preserve any video footage.
- Write down everything you remember while it is fresh.
These cases are not just about traffic flow. They are about constitutional rights. Peaceful protest has always involved tension with authority. From civil rights marches to labor demonstrations to modern political movements, governments have often relied on broadly worded public-order laws to control dissent.