What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff's predominant intent was to obstruct pedestrian traffic?

hinder the movement of children and other race attendees as they traveled from the walkway to the patio platform. And therefrom, at least some reasonable officers could have inferred from plaintiffs' refusal to relocate to a site where their right to protest would be undiminished, but their ability to obstruct would be lost, that their predominant intent in insisting on staying on the steps was to obstruct pedestrian traffic. See State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. at 807 (allowing finding of predominant intent where circumstances demonstrate that expressive intent is "insignificant in comparison with the inconvenience, annoyance or alarm caused by the exercise" (internal quotation marks omitted)).