Ramon Marroquin v. State
02-13-00223-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- At a Fort Worth Gay Pride Parade police formed a skirmish line to control crowds and preserve the peace; officers ordered attendees not to cross the line.
- Joey Darrell Faust and Ramon Marroquin attempted to cross the police line after being ordered not to; each was charged under Texas Penal Code § 38.15(a)(1) for interfering with a peace officer performing a lawful duty.
- Defendants argued the police skirmish line unlawfully burdened their First Amendment speech rights and thus they were privileged to disobey; they appealed after conviction and the court of appeals reversed and rendered acquittals.
- The State sought discretionary review to resolve whether citizens may use First Amendment claims to justify forcibly disobeying police orders set to preserve the peace.
- Judge Newell (concurring) raised an unbriefed preservation issue whether appellants obtained an adverse ruling necessary for appellate review, but the concurrence focuses on the merits of the granted grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether citizens may use the First Amendment to justify disobeying lawful police orders and forcibly crossing a skirmish line | Faust/Marroquin: Skirmish line unlawfully burdened their speech and assembly, so they could disregard orders to reach their chosen speech location | State: Interfering with officers performing duties is a crime; First Amendment does not authorize forcible interference beyond speech | Court: Concurrence holds interference (other than "speech only") is proscribed even if citizen believes officer violated rights; disputes should be resolved in court, not by street resistance |
| Whether the Interference with Public Duties statute requires the officer’s means to be lawful as an element | Faust/Marroquin: Officer duties performed unlawfully (skirmish line) removes statute's protection | State: Statute punishes interference with duties; officer duty existed to preserve peace regardless of means | Court: Concurrence reads statute to prohibit interference while officer performs duty; distinction between duty (imposed by law) and means used; does not mandate acquittal because officer’s means may later be judged unlawful |
| Whether appellants’ conduct fell within the statute’s "speech only" defense | Faust/Marroquin: Their protest was effectively speech about the parade and message | State: Defendants physically attempted to cross/push through the line — conduct beyond "speech only" | Court: Concurrence notes crossing/pushing is not "speech only," so statutory defense inapplicable |
| Whether citizens should be permitted to use self-help against alleged constitutional violations by officers | Faust/Marroquin: Immediate vindication on scene may be the only practical way to protest in that place/time | State: Allowing self-help risks escalation and public safety hazards; courts should resolve constitutional claims | Court: Concurrence emphasizes public safety and rule that self-help on the street is generally prohibited; limited self-defense exceptions remain |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (struck down an ordinance criminalizing interrupting police when it lacked a "speech only" defense)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment permits some physical force by officers to effect arrests)
- Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (disputes about arrest legality are for courts, not street self-help)
- State v. Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (it is no defense to resisting arrest that the arrest was unlawful)