What constitutes an offense of obstructing the administration of law?

The offense of obstructing the administration of law is specifically characterized by actions that interfere with the lawful duties of public servants using deliberate tactics, such as flight, intimidation, or force. This means that the individual not only must intend to obstruct the law but must also engage in specific behaviors that create a tangible disruption. The use of flight suggests an attempt to evade authority, while intimidation implies coercing or threatening a public servant to hinder their duties. Force indicates the physical obstruction of law enforcement or similar public officials in carrying out their roles.

In this context, the other options do not adequately encapsulate the seriousness or the specific criteria that define the offense. For instance, using intimidation alone does not provide a complete picture of obstructing the law, as it lacks the element of physical or evasive actions. Similarly, causing a public servant to perform a function unlawfully does not align with the typical definition of obstruction; rather, it implies manipulation rather than direct interference, which is not what the offense seeks to address. Lastly, interfering with an official function through lawful means does not constitute obstruction because it suggests that the means utilized fall within legal boundaries, therefore not meeting the criteria for this specific offense.