As an analogy, consider doing this to a person and trying that same excuse.

I suppose if the robot literally cannot path around someone standing still, it might be a valid excuse? But as soon as you're actively moving to block it, it is obviously obstruction.

Judges get to run off common sense, not programmer logic - the point of the law is that public paths ought to be usable by anyone for lawful purposes, and currently "delivery robot" is a lawful purpose.

> Presumably people could move around her

But if she was doing the same thing to humans as she was to the robot, they couldn't move around her (assuming that means re-positioning herself every time they try to go around) - and I think most people would agree that arresting her would be a good thing.

So the next question is, are all users of the sidewalk (as long as they're using it roughly the same way, which is temporary and quick pass through) deserve to have the same rights as a human?

My previous comment doesn't seem to align with this one, but mostly because I'm mixed on this.

>It's possible they might try to stretch (IMO bogus) "loitering" laws to get her, but doing so would make their intentions crystal clear.

If I stand on a train track, do you think the police aren't allowed to ask me to move?

She was explicitly repositioning herself to stay in the way of the robot and prevent it from making forward progress despite its efforts to move around her. She's not just standing there.

At least in my state it doesn’t matter if people can go around you. If you’re there to intentionally obstruct human or vehicle traffic on a sidewalk, you are guilty of disorderly conduct. Doesn’t matter whether you’re standing still, moving, blocking the whole sidewalk or just part of it. What matters is your state of mind and purpose.