Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Robles

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California

Decided June 4, 1996No. BR 35200Published

1Dissent

TODD, J., Dissenting.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Officer Huizar was discharging a duty of his office in conducting the undercover operation. I am of the view, however, that appellant’s verbal warning to a third party before any obvious illegal activity had taken place was protected speech and therefore cannot constitute a violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a).

The cases on which respondent relies, People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 446] and In re Andre P. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1164 [277 Cal.Rptr. 363], are not on point. In Quiroga, the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Lewis v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Long v. ValentinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. People v. Andre P.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. State v. TagesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API