People v. Robles
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
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
- City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Lewis v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Long v. ValentinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- People v. Andre P.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- State v. TagesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.