IN 1975, WILLIAM CASE DROVE PAST A STATE POLICE RADAR UNIT ON A NEW YORK HIGHWAY. USING HIS CB RADIO, HE WARNED TWO OTHER MOTORISTS OF THE RADAR VEHICLE, WHICH WAS ALSO EQUIPPED WITH A CB, REQUESTED THE BROADCASTER OF THE WARNING TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF AND SPECIFY HIS LOCATION. CASE WAS CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION. A GUILTY PLEA WAS ENTERED TO A LESSER CHARGE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND CASE WAS FINED $100. ON APPEAL, THE NEW YORK COURT OF OF APPEALS REVERSED THE CONVICTION. HOLDING THAT A CB MESSAGE FROM ONE MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR TO ANOTHER AS TO THE LOCATION OF A RADAR CHECKPOINT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION. THE COURT INTERPRETED THE QUISITE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 195.05 OF THE NEW YORK PENAL LAW. THE SECTION REQUIRES SPECIFIC INTENT, A RESULTING OBSTRUCTION, AND CONDUCT INVOLVING EITHER INTIMIDATION, PHYSICAL FORCE, OR AN INDEPENDENTLY UNLAWFUL ACT. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SECTION WAS PREVIOUSLY UPHELD IN BISHOP V. GOLDEN (1969), WHEREIN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WAS DEEMED NEITHER VAGUE NOR OVERBROAD. ALSO, IN PEOPLE V. LONGO (1971), THE COURT HELD THAT A VERBAL ACT ALONE WOULD PROBABLY NOT CONSTITUTE PHYSICAL FORCE OR INTERFERENCE WITHIN THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE WORDS. IN THE CASE DECISION, THE COURT WAS UNANIMOUS ON ONE POINT: THE FUTURE LEGALITY OF CB RADAR WARNINGS AND RELATED ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE. AT THE PRESENT TIME (1977), THERE IS NO STRONG IMPETUS FOR CRIMINALIZING SUCH CB USE IN NEW YORK STATE. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (LWM)