To the Editor:

Whistleblowing seems harmless and is most often child’s play [“In wake of Good’s death, scores turn out at Guilderland library to make whistleblower kits,” The Altamont Enterprise, Jan. 13, 2026].

Yet, after reading about the detailed efforts at the Guilderland Public Library reported on the front page of The Enterprise, reporting on the increased encouragement of organized whistleblowing while in the presence of ICE police, I wondered whether there should have been a New York State Bar Association member lawyer’s assessment on the legality.

While Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often wrong, and perhaps so here, is this below information substantially accurate and does this apply to New York State?

Yes, blowing a whistle to deliberately disrupt law enforcement's lawful duties in New York can be illegal, potentially falling under obstruction of governmental administration (Penal Law § 195.05) or similar offenses, as it interferes with official functions, but New York does protect whistleblowers who report actual employer illegalities, which is a different context than disrupting an active police operation.

When it’s likely illegal (interfering with police):

If you're intentionally using a whistle to distract, confuse, or hinder police officers carrying out their lawful duties (like a traffic stop or pursuit) in a way that impedes their job, you could face charges for:

— Obstruction of governmental administration: Intentionally obstructing, impairing, or hindering a public servant from performing their official functions;

— Disorderly conduct: Creating a public disturbance with noise. 

Perhaps further clarification from a trusted legal authority, in layman’s terms, would be helpful to Enterprise readers, one way or another, since there does seem, to me, to be some risk involved. 

Chris Corbett

Schenectady

Editor’s note: Richard F. Hamm, SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor & Collins Fellow in the Department of History at the University at Albany, a specialist in civil liberties, said an arrest and conviction for whistleblowing would be a matter of context, which would involve deciding whether the whistleblower was obstructing police or exercising free speech.

He gave the example of a woman blowing a whistle while being raped as highly unlikely to be arrested.

Hamm outlined the steps that would be involved, starting with a local police officer deciding to make an arrest; he said ICE doesn’t have jurisdiction to do so. Then the officer would have to decide on the charge, the local prosecutor would have to decide to present the case, and finally a judge or jury would have to decide to convict.

Hamm noted that, in August 2025, when Shawn Dunn, a former Justice Department worker, threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent during protests in Washington, D.C., leading to his arrest and firing, he was later acquitted by a jury who viewed it as an act of protest rather than violence.