Court Opinion

ID: 9748863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:15:52.425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.065227
License: Public Domain

DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding that “[b]ecause Kersey refused to cooperate with King’s and Wilson’s investigation, he interfered with their public duties.... ”
*800Section 38.15 of the Texas Penal Code, outlining the offense of interference with public duties, provides in subsection (d): “It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged consisted of speech only.”1 In the only case I have found construing section 38.15(d), Justice Onion pointed out, “It is observed that section 38.15 expressly provides in subsection (d) a defense when the interference consists of speech only. Even without this statutory defense, a verbal interference with a public servant or officer could be defended on grounds of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” 2
Additionally, I would point out that violation of section 395.8 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation Act carries its own sanctions.3 Because Kersey does not challenge the validity of his arrest, however, our discussion of the lawfulness of his arrest is unnecessary and, I believe, mere dicta that should be omitted.

. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.15(d) (Vernon Supp.2002).

. Carney v. State, 31 S.W.3d 392, 396 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, no pet.).

. See 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(e) (2001) ("Failure to complete the record of duty activities of this section ..., failure to preserve a record of such duty activities, or making of false reports in connection with such duty activities shall make the driver and/or the carrier liable to prosecution.”).