## Facts

- Los Angeles Police Officer Samuel Huizar worked undercover in a narcotics operation in an area with heavy drug and gang activity.
- Huizar, in civilian clothes and an unmarked car, approached a 17-year-old on a bicycle and began negotiating to buy “rock” cocaine.
- Luis Martin Robles approached and repeatedly told the suspect that Huizar was a police officer and urged the suspect to leave, despite Huizar’s denial.
- The suspect ended the negotiation and fled, preventing the undercover purchase.
- Robles was charged with misdemeanor obstructing/resisting an officer under California Penal Code § 148(a) based on interfering with the undercover operation.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence showed Huizar was lawfully discharging or attempting to discharge his duties, as required by Penal Code § 148(a).
2. Whether Robles’s verbal warnings were protected speech under the federal and state Constitutions, barring conviction under § 148(a).

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction.
- The evidence supported that Huizar’s attempted undercover drug purchase was a lawful police duty within § 148(a).
- Robles’s repeated warnings to the suspect constituted willful obstruction under § 148(a), even though the interference was verbal.
- Robles’s speech, aimed at disrupting an ongoing lawful police operation and accomplishing that disruption, was not constitutionally protected in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 148(a) applies when an officer is lawfully performing or attempting to perform official duties, including undercover narcotics enforcement activities.
- “Resisting, delaying, or obstructing” under § 148(a) may be accomplished by words alone when the speech is used as an instrument to impede an officer’s active performance of duties.
- The First Amendment does not bar punishment of speech that directly and intentionally interferes with ongoing lawful police activity; criticism or disagreement is distinct from targeted obstruction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Robles’s § 148(a) conviction because the undercover officer was performing lawful duties and Robles’s repeated warnings were deliberate, effective interference with an active narcotics operation rather than protected speech.


People v. Robles, 48 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 369 (App. Dep’t Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. 1996)