Ramon Marroquin v. State
02-13-00223-CR
Tex. App.Dec 9, 2015Background
- Appellants confronted parade marchers; police formed a skirmish line to keep opposing groups apart and ordered appellants not to cross.
- Appellants attempted to cross the police line (southbound) toward marchers and used abusive language; officers pushed back and arrested them for interfering with public duties and pushing officers.
- Appellants challenged the arrests on constitutional grounds (First Amendment and allegedly unlawful police authority in forming/enforcing the skirmish line) and argued Section 38.15 was unconstitutionally applied.
- The Court considered whether citizens may lawfully ignore a police skirmish line if they contend the line or order is unlawful.
- The Court held the officers’ exercise of authority in forming/enforcing the skirmish line was lawful and that crossing the line was not protected expressive conduct; arrests were for interference with public duties, not for speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether citizens may defy a police skirmish line they contend is unlawful | Appellants: they could not be arrested for crossing if the police order was unlawful | State: citizens must obey reasonable police directives; legality is for courts, not individuals | Court: Citizens may not ignore skirmish-line orders; legality is determined later by courts; obedience required |
| Whether crossing the street toward marchers was protected expressive conduct | Appellants: their movement and conduct were tied to expressive activity (First Amendment) | State: crossing southbound to harass marchers was not speech or expressive conduct | Court: Crossing toward marchers was not protected expressive conduct; arrests not First Amendment violations |
| Whether officers acted under color of lawful authority such that resisting is prohibited despite alleged unlawfulness | Appellants: officers’ authority was challenged; resisting was justified if order unlawful | State: officers were exercising lawful duty; resistance is not permitted even if arrest/order arguably unlawful | Court: Officers acted lawfully in forming and enforcing the line; resistance/unlawful-arrest defense not available here |
| Remedy for alleged constitutional violations by officers | Appellants: relief for unlawful orders should bar arrest or provide other immediate relief | State: constitutional complaints are remediable through civil suits, not street resistance | Court: Section 1983 provides post-hoc relief; citizens should not use self-help in the field |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 574 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (officer in lawful discharge of duty even if defendant contends arrest was unlawful)
- Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (discussion of resisting arrest and related defenses)
- Ford v. State, 538 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (resisting-arrest principles and limits on self-help)
- State v. Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (abolishing common-law right to resist unlawful arrest; safety rationale)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified-immunity framework: first determine constitutional violation)
- Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2007) (reasonable-officer inquiry in §1983 context)
- Resident Council of Allen Parkway Vill. v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1993) (§1983 threshold: deprivation by person acting under color of state law)
- Pritchard v. Downie, 326 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1964) (marchers breaking police line can justify arrests without violating First Amendment rights)