Clever Attorney EXPOSES Cop's Lie in Court And Saves His Client!

Ajouté : 2026-05-28

[00:00:02]On December 5th, 2024, felony probationer Marlon Zenan appeared before Judge David Fleer at Harris County Criminal Court in Houston, Texas for a probable cause hearing. He had been arrested 2 days earlier on an open warrant and charged with interference with public duties for allegedly resisting placement into a patrol vehicle. His attorney, Gregory Ciros, came to that hearing with a constitutional challenge to the statute itself. The law's language was so broad, he argued, that it gave officers nearly unlimited discretion to decide what constituted a crime. Judge Flecher had questions about the arrest. Body camera footage would answer them.

[00:00:38]>> On December 3rd of 2024, officers were dispatched to the HB located at 4955 State Highway 6 regarding a disturbance in progress. Officers received four calls, all from witnesses who stated the defendant was arguing with and assaulting a female. While on route to the location, officers observed a couple at the intersection about 0.1 miles away from the HB where the original call >> observed what?

[00:01:02]>> They saw the couple at the intersection.

[00:01:04]>> Okay. Okay. They saw Okay.

[00:01:06][clears throat] >> Yes, judge. The defendant was uncooperative with officers. The defendant advised he and the complainant were involved in a verbal altercation and stated he threatened her, saying he would slap her. When officers advised the defendant that he was in custody for an outstanding warrant, he got upset and began to yell. Officers located a clear plastic bag containing 3.6 grams of marijuana. The defendant refused to comply with officer's commands to sit down and would not place his legs and feet inside the vehicle. The defendant pushed back against the officer's hand with his chest when when he attempted to help him into the vehicle, pushed his legs straight, and applied force toward officer's hand in an attempt to stop him from placing his legs inside the vehicle and then used the bottom of his foot against the bottom of the the door frame to further resist. The defendant refused to speak with officers and would not cooperate with the investigation. All witnesses on scene heard the defendant threatened to hit CW. And another witness stated she observed the defendant pushed a complainant in the chest and face with two open hands. He does have an active felony warrant from the Fort Ben County Sheriff's Office for aggravated assault with a deathly.

[00:02:08]>> But he has an open egg assault somewhere else too >> in Fort Ben County. Judge, >> my understanding it's >> at that time.

[00:02:16]>> Yes, judge.

[00:02:17]>> May I respond to all this, John?

[00:02:19]>> Sure. Please. Where's the interference?

[00:02:22]>> Okay. Well, they're putting him in a car and he's he's like going.

[00:02:27]>> It's not interference with public duties. If they're sitting there saying they have a marijuana charge they could have done, it's a is it a resisting maybe, but it's not an interference with the public duties. They said he didn't talk. He doesn't have to talk to them.

[00:02:39]Like, and they're and they're a mile.1 mile away from the location for what?

[00:02:44]>> Well, okay, I get that. But so, we have Well, we have we've got a disturbance at HB. Cops go there. Okay, >> they start to talk to him and I guess at that point says, "Hey man, I'm going to slap her."

[00:02:57]>> So at that point, I mean, that's what we have, okay?

[00:03:00]>> Right. Mr. Xenon, >> there's always two sides to the story. I get it. This is just probable cause. It doesn't mean that you're guilty. This offense is just probable cause. That in and of itself, is it enough to continue an investigation? And it is because it's a potential terroristic threat, right?

[00:03:20]So they have enough to go forward to investigate. They start investigating and then they find that you have a felony open warrant and then they find there was something else that was there another warrant that you said.

[00:03:34]>> Uh it's the aggravated assault. Judge, I also would like to point out that the >> but they end up putting him in the car and at that point he basically just goes blank like this for them being unable to effectuate an arrest >> and judge um >> think that's an interference.

[00:03:53]>> I don't I mean I think the intent of the law within itself is that if it's you're interfering with their investigation for something else. He did not interfere with anything. Okay, hold. Let's read the code. Let's read it cuz I mean there's no better way. Let's read it.

[00:04:10]>> I'll give you [sighs] Let's pull up the code.

[00:04:17]>> Intake could have taken some other things, but >> Well, certainly they could have taken a whole myat of I mean, lucky they didn't charge with assault of a peace officer.

[00:04:26]There's a whole host of other charges that they could have put on, you know, if >> but they didn't they didn't they took the one that I do not believe applies here.

[00:04:35]>> Let let's let's read the code. Let's see what the code says because, you know, there's there's multiple ways that a charge can, you know, that you can charge someone with facts, right?

[00:04:48]There's multiple ways that can you're right. It could have been like a resisting, you know, but >> defense attorney just did something unexpected. He's not arguing about what happened in that parking lot. He's attacking the law itself. Here's the play. If he can convince Judge Fleer that this statute is so vague it violates the Constitution, the charge disappears. No body camera footage, no witness testimony, no trial. The law itself becomes the problem, not what Zenon did. But this is a gamble. Texas courts have heard this argument before and they've sided with the state every time. Saros knows that. So why is he pushing it? Because when Judge Fleer reads this statute out loud, he's going to see just how broad the language is.

[00:05:37]Interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer. That could mean almost anything. And if the judge agrees it's too vague for a citizen to know what's legal and what's not, the case ends right here. That's why they're about to pull up the law and read every word.

[00:05:53]>> Okay, you ready?

[00:05:55]A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence, interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with number one, a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law.

[00:06:15]Two, a person who is employed to provide emergency medical services. Yeah. A firefighter. Number three, for an animal under supervision. Oh, so I guess it it's a person they it interrupts dis disrupts impedes or otherwise interferes with number one a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law.

[00:06:40]>> That is the vaguest thing I've ever heard in my life. I mean come on. How >> it is you.

[00:06:45]>> Okay. So that that the cop can claim anything is interfering with public duties. I mean that I mean constitutionally that is the vaguest thing I've ever heard of.

[00:06:54]>> That's the that's the statute.

[00:06:55][laughter] >> You'll find no argument with me, right?

[00:06:59]It is pretty vague. It is >> he's got bigger issues. I mean, they should have taken the other charges. My whole point. I mean, >> but he's disrupting the officer while he's trying to discharge a duty, right?

[00:07:12]He's the officer's trying to arrest him and put him in the car and he's he's not letting him do it. that I mean that's assuming they even had the right to do that. I mean his point any warrant.

[00:07:23]>> They didn't even know about the warrant.

[00:07:24]They didn't know about the warrant till after. So I mean that comes after all of this.

[00:07:30]>> They're saying go ahead. I didn't even give you a chance to talk.

[00:07:32]>> No, you're okay judge. Um they were investigating the assault judge is what I or the ter the threat that he admitted to making. So it was an active investigation and then when they were detaining him they he was resisting arrest is what it seems like. And that's why it was charged with interference with public servants.

[00:07:49]>> And there were also four 911 calls that were made about this couple arguing. I mean, that's what they were investigating.

[00:07:56]>> And the witnesses all describe >> they put him, I guess, did they put him under arrest at the time when he said that he was making that threat? [snorts] >> And with the with being >> did they have did they have the authority to arrest at that time? Right.

[00:08:16]I think it was during their investigation the defendant admitted to threatening, you know, that he would slap a miscl >> and it's at that point they start to put him under arrest.

[00:08:26]>> At that point they ran him through the NCIC and they found that there was an active warrant and then they informed him that he was in custody.

[00:08:33]>> Okay. Then that's a resisting from what they're using to say he's pushing back or that's a resist. That's not interference with public duties. But it could be that a pair [snorts] a a set of facts can be multiple charges, right? So you could be resisting, but it it could also theoretically be interfering with what he's trying to affectuate with which is an arrest. It's a duty that he's performing. He's performing the duty of an arrest.

[00:09:03]>> But again, it's vague. It's the officer didn't put in the report. He's not saying in the DIM summary, you are under arrest.

[00:09:09]>> Well, I mean, it's okay. Well, I mean, but so >> we don't know. I I mean, >> okay, I'm just saying >> if he says he's under arrest, but I mean, damn, it's it's all but clear.

[00:09:19]>> I mean, this is >> we also don't have the offense recording.

[00:09:24]>> I mean, but but I think that there's enough, you know, he's he's under he places him in custody, right? He's going to arrest him, starts putting him in the car, and dude goes plank.

[00:09:39]But I don't have to think >> remember this is a very low burden. This is probable cause. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. You know, beyond a reasonable doubt is a different standard. This is just to see if there's enough to go forward. And and according to this, you're disrupting allegedly.

[00:10:03]you're impeding and you're otherwise interfering with him trying to arrest you and putting you in the car.

[00:10:14]A a person can interfere with duties in multiple ways. It's not just one way like you go there and you and someone else tries to stop an arrest from happening.

[00:10:25]>> I don't know. I think I think that there's another >> whisper to me because I want to know what you're about to say. And if you want time, you guys can go back and talk.

[00:10:37]>> Okay. Well, I gotta say three times to search.

[00:10:40]>> Can I have a moment to look at the video here?

[00:10:43]He's telling me a whole separate >> but I need to give them time to be able to look at it, too. I mean, it's noon.

[00:10:50]Why don't we do this? Why don't we roll it to Monday and we can I'll find it now. We can reapproach Monday morning or tomorrow even. And if you find, you know, >> if you find a completely set of different facts than to what they're saying on video, I'm all ears. I'm always all ears. I'm always willing to rehear problem cause at any time. I mean, it's not the be all end all. But for now, what they're telling me, if it in fact is the case, it's there's enough for probable cause to go forward. Is there enough beyond a reasonable out? I don't know. But be that as it may, you know, okay, it looks like they didn't give him a PR bond on this.

[00:11:33]>> Okay.

[00:11:35]>> Your bond right now is set at 2500.

[00:11:37]>> Okay.

[00:11:37]>> Um, your bond upstairs is set at 5,000.

[00:11:41]Tell me about that Fort Ben case. Has Is it old? Is it new?

[00:11:46]>> Let me Let me check, judge.

[00:11:47]>> I think it's 2023.

[00:11:49]>> Is it?

[00:11:50]>> I don't know. I mean, cuz looks like you got on probation in October of this year.

[00:11:57]When you're on probation, dude, on felony probation, you're have a freaking halo over your head. You know, you got to be as good as you can. You're facing a lot of time in prison. Have you been to prison before?

[00:12:11]>> No, sir. No, sir. It's It's not a fun place, you know, and I don't know what we need to do to get your attention, man. Just in [clears throat] life, if you're with a person that brings the worst out in you, then don't be with that person.

[00:12:32]There's a gajillion and one fish in the sea. But how can a person get you so wrapped around your finger to make you, you know, >> just go? It's like a cancer. When you have cancer, if you don't cut it out, it kills you. This is killing you.

[00:12:55]>> I can contact sport judge and get more information.

[00:12:58]>> Well, it doesn't matter. It's neither here nor there. Um, I'll do whatever you want to You want to set tomorrow, Monday? What in >> I'll watch it today and come back tomorrow if you want.

[00:13:09]>> Yeah. I mean, if you want >> surely you you have it.

[00:13:14]>> We have the camera.

[00:13:16]>> I I just shared.

[00:13:17]>> Okay. So, >> they shared it. They just shared it with me.

[00:13:19]>> Let's roll it to tomorrow. You guys take a look at the video as well. Be prepared and then we can reconvene tomorrow. For purposes of now, I'll find probable cause and then we can regroup again tomorrow.

[00:13:28]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:13:29]>> Yeah. Okay. All right, Mr. Xenon.

[00:13:31]>> Okay.

[00:13:31]>> See you tomorrow.

[00:13:32]>> See you tomorrow. probably gonna agree to disagree here.

[00:13:38]>> I I mean I would like for you to watch like the two minutes of the video that I think >> so judge I also because you had this question yesterday. I called Fort Bend and they they confirmed it. The Fort Ben County aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. It's just sealed and that's why it didn't pop up.

[00:13:54]>> Just what?

[00:13:55]>> It's sealed at the moment.

[00:13:56]>> Sealed. Is it a new case? Is it an old case?

[00:13:59]>> Just filed in November, judge. Wow. But the the offense date was in March.

[00:14:04]>> Okay. So that's what I'm asking. It was the offense date was March of 24.

[00:14:09]>> Yes.

[00:14:10]>> So it was allegedly committed prior to now. Nevertheless, it's still a warrant.

[00:14:15]>> But how on earth has it never been?

[00:14:18]>> It's because uh so they'll unseal it whenever an arrest happens. Judge, the case was filed. He had two other charges in this county even that he caught even after that one. I'm so confused.

[00:14:32]You know that there's a Fort Ben knows that there's a felony warrant, a dangerous felony warrant, and they failed to execute that warrant over and over. He's been on probation. He's been meeting with his in here that he's got on two years probation for. And then had also a UCW here that he caught after that and another assault of a pregnant person that he caught here after that and another UCW that he caught here after that. So he had just a string of cases and I mean the list goes on but there was just a string of cases that he caught even after that. So I guess they just never >> I don't know.

[00:15:09]>> I will tell you the shenanigans from my experience that forbend does. So if they think they're going to TDC I have seen them let them go to TDC wait till they even make parole or discharge or finish that sentence right >> and then they're out and they go oh now we're going to file you. And then parole goes oh now we're going to revoke your parole. Those are the shenanigans that I've seen and this has been going on for years out there like prior administration continuing.

[00:15:36]>> But I mean I I guess ultimately at the end of the day even if that happens like let's just say the pro board is going to look and see that it was like extremely old right I would have the first time >> I don't I'm not gonna read it doesn't matter [laughter] in >> I mean it doesn't matter it's it's on video.

[00:15:56]>> [snorts] >> Okay.

[00:15:59]>> Required.

[00:16:01]>> Correct.

[00:16:02]>> On video, guys. Like I watched it. I'm not crazy. Like this. It's on video.

[00:16:08]>> Sorry to keep >> I'll talk to judge about it.

[00:16:11]>> You You're still upset?

[00:16:13]>> Yes. I watched the video and I'm even more upset. Judge, >> so judge, we just want to address some of the questions that you that defense and you had yesterday. Um defense was saying that he felt that interference statute was over broad. [snorts] We found case law saying that it's or vague that it's unconstitutionally vague. We found case law saying that it's not unconstitutionally vague. It's from donal versus state. I tendered it to defense. Can I approach judge?

[00:16:41]>> I got to imagine that if it was if it was unconstitutionally vague, someone would have challenged it and it would have you know >> Well, maybe they haven't had my case yet. Okay.

[00:16:51]>> And you know, I'm happy for you to make me new law, you know, always. Um, why are you saying that there's no PC in this case?

[00:17:05]>> Is there a PC for something else? Yes.

[00:17:08]Is there for the interference with public duties? No. I mean, because it's on video, it didn't happen, judge. Like, so they get calls for an assault. Searos just lost the constitutional challenge, but he's pivoting to something stronger.

[00:17:23]The state charged Zenon under section 38.15, interference with public duties. But Saros is about to argue the conduct only fits section 38.03, resisting arrest. And here's why that matters. The difference comes down to force. Resisting requires you to physically push back against the officer. Interference just means disrupting their ability to do their job, even passively. Judge Fleer is about to break down what each statute requires and whether the state can prove their case. The answer determines if Zenan walks out or faces conviction. The body camera footage is about to show Judge Fleer exactly what happened.

[00:18:01]>> A disturbance. Whatever.

[00:18:02]>> You're telling me the fact that they're saying he goes plank in the car while he doesn't >> being arrested doesn't go plank. It's on video. Judge >> would they say he uses his I guess he uses his >> in handcuffs. The officer has to place his hand on the chest of the defendant to get the defendant to sit back in the car. He also has to grab his legs and push them back into the car.

[00:18:24]>> We also watch the video.

[00:18:25]>> We watch the video and we have a time stamp. Judge, >> could it be that it it I Okay, so I know that a lot of times when they're putting a defendant into the car, they need help, right? They're unable to do it by themselves or is he actively resisting getting into the car? He he sorry he tried exiting the vehicle judge and that's why they had to push him back into it.

[00:18:50]>> He leans forward. He's yelling at his mom. Record called the third time. The third time they have taken him out. This is three times they put him in the car and they take him out so they can search him. The cop is sitting there going, "Oh, we'll search him again. We can search him 20 times. If you feel you need to search him 20 times, search him 20 times for your safety." The cop doesn't even know what he's charging him with. DA hasn't been caught. The cop's sitting there go, I'm we're getting you for resisting transport. Resisting transport. That is what the cop thinks he's taking of him. DA officer Singh, it's the 20. It's a 27 minute video.

[00:19:27]Okay. At no point is the DA's office called to this point. Okay. That happens after. Fine. For an assault, they can argue. I can argue case law for state specific specific articulable facts a crime may have occurred. Fine. They are there on an assault.

[00:19:44]>> Okay. They didn't take an assault. So then they detain him, right? They find that he has the warrant. So, okay, you're taking him in on the warrant.

[00:19:55]Fine, >> judge. It's common for officers to conduct an investigation before they call intake. That's not an abnormal.

[00:20:03]>> I mean, that's neither here nor there.

[00:20:05]But the question is is he impeding the arrest or the function of arrest because I guess that you guys are basing the interference on the fact that he's not allowing him that um what's his name again?

[00:20:24]>> Xenon. [snorts] Your >> Mr. Xenon is not allowing the officer to arrest him by putting him in the car.

[00:20:32]Respectfully, judge, the officer doesn't even have to be arresting him. They just have to be looking into any legitimate matter [snorts] and then he's interfering with that. And I will say, if he'd already been in the car three times, like defense pointed out, I would think he wouldn't need help getting in.

[00:20:47]So, to us, it appears as though he's trying to push out. Officer has to put his hand on his chest to push him back into the car and then take his legs and place them into the car.

[00:20:57]>> He was cooperative the whole time. He's on his mom. If anyone's aggressive, it's the cop from the beginning.

[00:21:03]>> Judge the cop.

[00:21:04]>> And I ask at the court's discretion, watch the video. You only need to watch like two minutes, the 13 to 15 minute mark, your honor. I mean, that's all you really need to watch on this.

[00:21:13]>> Jud, >> we can watch the video. Judge, >> let's watch.

[00:21:22]>> Can you put it on the uh screen somehow so we can all watch?

[00:21:28]Do we can just go to the back and watch it? Do you want to hook it up?

[00:21:32]>> I don't because he he has issues hooking his computer up to the >> whole video or did you >> No, just the relevant portion. I don't need to see the whole thing.

[00:21:41]>> No, just just that part that's relevant.

[00:21:43]You know, I guess if you would have just put it right there and just turn it around on the uh on the table.

[00:21:52]>> Yeah. Right there. And sit it.

[00:21:56]Just turning the volume up as well.

[00:21:59]>> He talking about don't let him pull up.

[00:22:00]They talking about I got a warrant out for Ben County.

[00:22:06]>> KEEP PUSHING ME. MAMA RECORD.

[00:22:08]>> MAMA, LOOK. MAMA, LOOK.

[00:22:12]>> NOW YOU'RE under arrest.

[00:22:13]>> I'm under arrest.

[00:22:14]>> You got a new charge.

[00:22:16]>> Resisting transport.

[00:22:17]>> Resisting. I wouldn't resist.

[00:22:18]>> You just resisted transport.

[00:22:20]>> Y.

[00:22:21]>> What the hell is that?

[00:22:22]>> Now you got a new charge.

[00:22:24]>> Come on. Thank you.

[00:22:25]>> Officers are working in [laughter] the officer.

[00:22:30]>> That's it.

[00:22:30]>> That's it, your honor.

[00:22:31]>> That's the relevant portion that defense is.

[00:22:34]>> Come on.

[00:22:35]>> The officer is investigating legitimate.

[00:22:37]>> I know, but no. I'm >> You see why I'm so upset? You're okay.

[00:22:46]>> Yeah. Look. Yeah. I mean, you're not going to hurt our feelings. You're not You need to do what you need to do.

[00:22:52]Perhaps it was the wrong one, but yeah.

[00:22:55]Was it resisting?

[00:23:00]>> My name is Bennett and I ain't in it.

[00:23:03]>> The interference statute in Texas has survived every constitutional challenge.

[00:23:07]Courts say it's clear enough, but here's what matters to you. A law that says you can't interfere with police duties is so broad that an officer can make it mean almost anything in the moment. Needing help getting into a car can become a criminal charge. The officer decides and you're the one facing jail time. This case shows why body cameras matter.

[00:23:27]Without that footage, Mr. Zenon would have been convicted based on the officer's word alone. The video didn't just help him win. It was the only reason the judge saw what actually happened. If you're ever in a situation with police, the camera is your best witness. Courts have said these broad laws are constitutional, but that doesn't mean they're being applied correctly. The video is what keeps officers honest. Let us know if there is a case or courtroom interaction that you would like us to explore in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to like and subscribe.