But he has an open egg assault somewhere else, too. Please, where's the interference? Okay. Well, they're putting him in a car and he's he's like, 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. No, just be careful, man. Life too short, right? My brother nearly got shot. Let me set it. I'm just turning the volume off this. He talking about don't let him pull up. Look. Keep pushing me. Mama record. Mama, look. Mama, look. Record him. Now you're Now you're under arrest. Sherman Pierce's arrest was built on nothing more than suspicion. A clear violation of constitutional standards. Bringing verse, United States, 1949. Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion. It demands facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Yet, in this case, police had no facts, just a neighbor's assumption that Pierce must have broken a window because he was nearby. No witness saw the act. No evidence tied him to the scene. The only proof was racial profiling, as Pice himself suggested when he described being arrested for riding his bike while black. Luckily for him, he had a good judge who can save him from bad cops. Come on up. How are you? [Music] So, your lawyer, I'm bringing you out now. You are charged with criminal mischief, right? Yes, sir. There is a question about whether there's probable cause to go forward with the case. We're going to do that right now. Yes, sir. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you, sir. Okay. On March 9th, 2025, officer discussed the 6615 street in Houston, Texas in Harris County. A regarding a criminal mischief investigation, the complainant and the complainant's wife had known the defendant for around 20 years. The complainant heard a loud crash outside and believed that it was the defendant because the defendant broke into the complainant's car the day before. The complaintant went outside and saw the defendant riding his bike on the street and observed it in front and observed his front window to be broken and a large rock um the size of a baseball found on his side. The defendant told the complainant that he was going to get gasoline and set the house on fire. Um and the defendant was identified by his Texas driver's license. The officer searched the area for the defendant and observed a defendant near his listed address, placed him in handcuffs. The defendant told the officer that you just put him in handcuffs. Let me just put him in handcuffs. He's riding his bike while black. Any kind of evidence to show that he did it? The investigation. He didn't see him do it. No, they did not observe him. No. All right. I'm going to find no probable cause in your case, sir. Okay. Mr. Pierce, Mr. Pierce. No, just be careful, man. Life's too short. I take care, right? My brother just got shot. My grandmother passed, man. I've been doing everything right. I changed my I got I changed my life. Proble you still got the felony case that's holding you upstairs. So, I can't get you out today. You You don't have a case going us with four no with us. But they say my bond was 500, right? I can't post more. You You just got your case dismissed. You have no mind on this one at all. You just have the felony. You just have the felony. This one's no PC. Mr. Morrison, you're going to get out today. Yes, sir. Because you've made bond on your felony case. And I found no PC on this case today. But stay in touch with your lawyer and be good. Be good. Just it's not hard. Be nice. Okay, Mr. P. Good luck to you. You, too. This was the one where you were able to get him down before, right? Hey, Mr. Morrison. Mr. some if you ever feel like there's no probable cause on something, bring it to our attention. We'll do we'll do PC anytime. Just, you know, with it, so it's not a big deal. You know, we get people that come up and do PC two, three, four different times. Just really Yeah. So, Judge Flea saw this injustice immediately, dismissing the case before it could waste another minute of court time. The Fourth Amendment exists precisely to stop arrests like this. Arrests based on hunches rather than evidence. The Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. Judge Fleer enforced this principle, refusing to let police laziness or bias dictate Pierce's fate. Where officers saw a suspect, the judge saw a citizen whose rights were violated. Where prosecutors saw a case, the judge saw a dangerous lack of probable cause. His ruling did more than free Pierce. It sent a message that courts must remain the last defense against bad policing. And his final words to Pierce, stay out of trouble, weren't just advice. They were a quiet indictment of a system that too often punishes first and asks questions later. Nine. Now he's on his 10th case. Specifically, an unlawful carrying of a weapon. Another unlawful carrying of a weapon. Another unlawful carrying of a weapon. Another unlawful carrying of a weapon. A felony possession of marijuana. Felony assault of a pregnant person. And I guess all that worked into a deal where he got on probation for evading. And now we have But all those cases were dismissed. Correct. Your honor. Okay. Pursuant to the I guess I I understand that we literally had one after the other like a step a run on a step ladder. One after the other. The prosecution argued that the defendant, Mr. Xenon, interfered with police officers during an arrest. A a charge under more Texas Penal Code section 38.15. A person commits an offense if the person interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer performing a duty or exercising authority. However, the defense immediately challenged this, claiming the statute, was unconstitutionally vague and didn't apply. Judge Flecher, skeptical of the charge, questioned whether simply resisting arrest, which the video later disproved, truly constituted interference. His willingness to scrutinize the law rather than blindly accepting the officer's version demonstrated his commitment to fairness over rubber stamping police claims. So, let's do probable cause. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. I just wanted to give you a heads up of how much history we have with Mr. Xenon because it's a lot. I appreciate that, your honor. Sure. But to be that as it may, I'm not going to hold I never will withhold anything against him. So, let's go. On December 3rd, 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 HUV where the original observed what? They saw the couple at the intersection. What do they think they saw? 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 g 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. He has an open egg assault somewhere else too in Fort Ben County. Judge, my understanding it's an at that time. Yes, judge. May I respond to all this yarn? Sure. Please. Where's the interference? Okay. Well, they're putting him in a car and he's he's like blink. 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. Like, and they're and they're a mile.1 mile away from the location. So, what? Well, okay, I get that. But, so we have what we have. We've got a disturbance at HB. Cops go there. They start to talk to him and I guess at that point says, "Hey man, I'm going to slap her." So at that point, I mean, that's what we have, right? Mr. Xenon, there's always two sides of 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? 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. Uh it's the aggravated assault judge. I also would like to point out that the 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 you think that's an interference. 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. Hold. Let's read the code. Let's read it cuz I mean there's no better way. Let's read it. I'll give you I'll pull up the code. Could have taken some other things, but Well, certainly they could have taken a whole myat of I mean, you're lucky they didn't charge him with assault of a peace officer. There's a whole host of other charges that they could have put on, you know, if they didn't they didn't they expect the one that I do not believe applies there. 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? There's multiple ways that can you're right. It could have been like a resisting, you know, [Music] but Okay, you ready? 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. Two, a person who is employed to provide emergency medical services yet a firefighter. Number three, foreign animal under supervision. Oh, so I guess it it's a person they it interrupts disres 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. That is the vaguest thing I've ever heard in my life. I mean come on it is I 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. Judge, that's the that's the statue. You'll find no argument with me, right? It is pretty vague. It is my 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? 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. I mean, that's assuming they even had the right to do that. I mean, he's pointing warrant. They didn't even know about the warrant. They didn't know about the warrant till after. So, I mean, that comes after all of this. They're saying Go ahead. I didn't even give you a chance to talk. No, you're okay, Judge. Um, they were investigating the assault judge is what or the 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. And there were also four 911 calls that were made about this couple arguing. I mean, that's what they were investigating. And the witnesses all describe I guess did they put him under arrest at the time when he said that he was making that threat? [Music] And with the with being did they have did they have the authority to arrest at that time right? So I think it was during their investigation the defendant admitted to threatening you know that he would slap into a miscl and it's at that point they start to put him under arrest. At that point they ran him through the NCIC and they found that there was an active war and then they informed him that he was in custody. Okay. then that's a resisting from what they're using to say he's pushing back or that's a resist that's on interference with public duties. But it could be that a pair 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 effectuate with which is an arrest. It's a duty that he's performing. He's performing the duty of an arrest. 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. We don't Well, I mean, it's okay. Well, I mean, but so we don't know. I I mean, okay. I'm just saying, well, he says he's under arrest, but I mean, damn, it's it's all but clear. I mean, this is We also don't have the offensive report. I don't care. 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 [Music] plank. But I don't have to read videos. 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 are disrupting allegedly you're impeding and you're otherwise interfering with him trying to arrest you and putting you in the car. A a person can interfere with duties in multiple ways. It's not just one way like you go in there and you and someone else tries to stop an arrest from happening. I don't know. I I think that there's whisper to me cuz I want your and if you want time you guys can go back and talk. Okay. Well, I got to say three times to surgery. Can I have a moment to look at the video? [Music] 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. 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 read your probable 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 of probable problem cause to go forward. Is there enough beyond a reasonable out? No. But be that as it may, you know, the defense insisted the body cam footage would disprove the interference allegation. Probable cause requires specific, articulable facts, not assumptions. Ford v. State 2005. When the judge finally reviewed the video, it showed Mr. Xenon compliant. No planking or aggressive resistance. Instead, the officer repeatedly removed him from the car, searched him multiple times, and even admitted confusion about the charges. Judge Fleer's reaction was telling. This is resisting. Come on. His refusal to ignore blatant discrepancies between the report and reality highlighted how a good judge can dismantle bad policing. Okay. It looks like they didn't give him a PR bond on this. Um, your bond right now is set at 2500. Um, your bond upstairs is set at 5,000. Tell me about that Fort Ben case. Has Is it old? Is it new? Let me let me check, judge. I think it's 2023. Is it I don't know. I mean, cuz looks like you got on probation in October of this year. 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? Yes, 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. this in life. If you're with a person that brings the worst out in you, then don't be with that person. 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. I can contact sport judge and get more information. Well, it doesn't matter. It's neither here nor there. Um, I'll do whatever you want to do. You want to sit tomorrow, Monday, what in I'll watch it today and come back tomorrow if you want. Yeah. I mean, if you want, surely. Do you have it? I I just shared. Okay. So share it with 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 and I'll find probable cause and then we can regroup again tomorrow. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. All right, Mr. Zeon. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow. I'm going to agree to disagree here. 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. Just what? It's sealed at the moment. Sealed. Is it a new case? Is it an old case? It's just filed in November, Judge. But the the offense date was in March. Okay. So, that's what I'm asking. It was the offense date was March of 24. Yes. So, it was allegedly committed prior to Now, nevertheless, it's still a warrant, but how on earth has it never been? It's because uh so they'll unseal it whenever an arrest happens. Judge, the case was filed. Ricky had two other charges in this county even that he caught even after that one. I'm so confused. you know that there's a Portman 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 2 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. 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. 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's going to look and see that it was like extremely old, right? I would have the first time. I don't I'm not going to read it. Doesn't matter as I mean it doesn't matter. It's it's on video. required but not on video guys like I watched it. I'm not crazy like this. It's on video. Let me talk to judge about it. You still upset? 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. 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 console versus state. I tendered it to defense. Can I approach judge? 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 and you know I'm happy for you to make me wrong you know always. Um why are you saying that there's no PC in this case? Is there PC for something else? Yes. 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, a disturbance, whatever. You're telling me the fact that they're saying he goes plank in the car while being arrested? He does not go plank. It's on video. Judge, would they say he uses his I guess he uses 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. We also watch the video. 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 Sorry. He tried exiting the vehicle, judge, and that's why they had to push him back into it. 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 called. cop sitting there go I'm we're getting you for resisting transport resisting transport that is what the cop thinks he's taking of it DA officer Singh it's the 20 it's a 27minute video 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 the state specific specific articulable facts a crime may have occurred fine they are there on an assault. 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. Fine, judge. It's common for officers to conduct an investigation before they call intake. That's not an abnormal I mean, that's neither here nor there. 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? Xenon. Your honor. Mr. Xenon is not allowing the officer to arrest him by putting him in the car. Respectfully, judge, the officer doesn't even have to be arresting him. They just have to be looking into any legitimate matter 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. So, to us, it appears as though he's trying to push out. Do rescue put his hand on his chest to push him back into the car and then take his legs and place them into the car. He was cooperative the whole time. He's on his mom. If anyone's aggressive, it's the cop from the beginning. Judge, and I ask at the court's discretion, watch the video. You only need to watch like 2 minutes, the 13 to 15 minute mark, your honor. The defense exposed deeper problems. Mr. Zenon had prior cases dismissed, yet Fort Ben County allegedly sat on a sealed warrant for months. A warrant must be executed without unnecessary delay. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article, Judge Fleer noted the absurdity. He's been arrested multiple times, but this dangerous warrant just sat there. His frustration revealed a system where officers and prosecutors manipulate warrants and charges to extend control over defendants, a pattern only a vigilant judge could challenge. I mean, that's all you really need to watch on this judge. We can watch the video. Let's watch. [Music] Can you put it on the uh screen somehow so we can all watch? Do we can just go to the back and watch it? Do you want to hook it up? I don't cuz he he has issues hooking his computer up to your whole video or did you No, just the relevant portion. I don't need to see the whole thing. No, just just that part that's relevant. You know, I guess if you would have just put it right there and just turn it around. Just right there on the uh on the table. Yeah, right there. Sit it. I'm just turning the volume off. He talking about don't let him pull up. They talking about I got a warrant out for Fort Van County assault. Look, keep pushing me. Mama, record. Mama, look. Mama, look. Record them. Now you're Now you're under arrest. I'm under arrest. You got a new charge. Boom. Resisting transport. Resisting. I went resisting. You just resisted transport. Yeah. What the hell is that? You got a new charge. Come on. Really? That's it. That's it, your honor. That's the relevant portion of the Come on. The officer is investigating legit. I know, but No, I'm You see why I'm so upset? You're okay. Resisting. 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. Perhaps it was the wrong one, but yeah. Was it resisting? My name is Bennett and I ain't in it. But no piece. Thank you. In the end, Judge Flecher found no probable cause for interference. The statute cannot criminalize passive conduct. Dantel versus state. He dismissed the charge, emphasizing that police overreach must meet legal standards, not just assertions. His parting words to Mr. Zenon, "You've got to cut out the people dragging you down." Were more than legal advice. They were a rebuke of a system that profits from cycling people through courts. By demanding accountability, Judge Fleer proved that good judges are the last line of defense against bad cops. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.