The client was alerted to the fact that his 23 year old daughter was being arrested for DWLS. When the client arrived on the scene of a strip mall plaza he observed his daughter in the back of the police car already in handcuffs. the client approached the officers and asked what was going on. The officers told the client that his daughter was being arrested and her vehicle was being towed. the client informed the officers that there were children’s school supplies in the back of his daughters vehicle and pleaded with the officers not to tow the vehicle. The officers refused and the client began to videotape the encounter on his cell phone. The officers told the client to back up, which he did. Then the client states that he wanted to speak with his daughter and takes 3 diagonal steps toward the open front passenger seat of the police car in an attempt to speak to his daughter at which point the officers arrest him. The judge included our proposed jury instruction on the definition of oppose to be described as an offensive action. We argued that the three diagnol steps were not an offensive action as his movement was not directed at the officers, but rather to communicate with his daughter regarding the children’s school supplies. Then we argued that there was no obstruction of an investigation because the daughter was already in the custody of the police and all three officers were standing outside the police car when the client arrived, further, there was no tow truck on the scene to allow for an inventory search. We also argued that Mr Neal did not resist arrest and never pulled away when the handcuffs were placed on him and then placed in the patrol car. The jury deliberated for 20 minutes and returned a not guilty verdict.