In State v. Perlstein, 206 N.J. Super. 246, 502 A.2d 81 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985), a police officer observed the defendant driving a vehicle that had a door decal on the windshield. After she had parked, the officer pulled alongside, exited his vehicle and confirmed that it was a decal. He then informed the defendant that it was a violation of law to obstruct the windshield and that that certain type of decal was not allowed to be placed anywhere on motor vehicles. The officer testified that he was going to allow the defendant to get a scraper to scrape the decal but at some point she became uncooperative and refused to remove the sticker. The officer told the defendant if she did not remove the sticker he was going to issue her a summons. The defendant refused and began to rant and rave at the officer. The officer asked the defendant to produce her driver's license and registration which she refused to tender and continued to spew a barrage of comments to the officer. Finally, the defendant said she was going to see the chief of police and attempted to drive away and was eventually prevented from doing so. The defendant was charged, inter alia, with obstructing the administration of law. The defendant was convicted of the charge and appealed. The Appellate Division rejected each of the defendant's arguments and upheld her conviction of the obstruction charge. First, it found that the defendant had engaged in independently unlawful acts, i.e., failing to produce her driving credentials upon request of a police officer and attempting to move her car contrary to the officer's directions. Perlstein, 502 A.2d at 85. And on the basis of this evidence, concluded that she had purposely obstructed the performance of the officer's duties. Id. Next, the court found that the defendant did not fit into any of the specified exceptions to the statute. Id. The evidence clearly showed there was no refusal to submit to an arrest. Id. Nor was the defendant charged with a crime when she attempted to flee. Id. at 85-86. Lastly, the court rejected the defendant's argument that because she failed to perform a legal duty, specifically, to show her driving credentials, that the statute did not apply to her. Id. at 86. The court reasoned that such a reading of the statute would render as superfluous the provision condemning behavior "by means of any independently unlawful act." Id. And on that basis, it declined to construe the provision as advanced by the defendant. Id.