Charge of Disorderly Conduct / Disturbing the Peace

[j706]

One could be charged with disorderly if they were ocing and started causing a scene and continued to do so after being told to stop.

 

[quicksdraw]

Yeah it's only if the beer in brewed onsite, but since Three Floyd's is so close...
Seriously, I am jealous. We can't seem to find it ANYWHERE in Indy. Used to be no one had heard of it and it was easy to find. Now that they've all tried it, it's nowhere to be found.
Sorry for the thread derail!

Have you tried Parti-Pak Liquors on Stop 11, just east of Madison (behind Marsh)? They usually have several 3 Floyds brews in stock.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

One could be charged with disorderly if they were ocing and started causing a scene and continued to do so after being told to stop.

Define "causing a scene." I'm certainly not going to say that OC is a "get out of jail free" card in regards to disorderly conduct but it also doesn't make it easier to be in violation of the law either. Have you read the disorderly conduct statute lately?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

FYI:

IC 35-45-1-3
Disorderly conduct
**** Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
********(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
********(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
********(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.
****(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
********(1) adversely affects airport security; and
********(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC*8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.
****(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:

********(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:
************(A) the location where a burial is being performed;
************(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or
************(C) a building in which:
****************(i) a funeral or memorial service; or
****************(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;
************is being conducted; and
********(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.70; P.L.92-1988, SEC.8; P.L.123-2002, SEC.40; P.L.3-2006, SEC.1.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Also some interesting case law from '73 where the ISC upheld a DC conviction for an antiwar protester. Look at their reasoning and how narrowly they were able to uphold the conviction based on his speech.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Bunnykid68]

One could be charged with disorderly if they were ocing and started causing a scene and continued to do so after being told to stop.

One could be charged with that even if they were not OC and not causing a scene

 

[Frankingun]

That was Philidelphia. Or at least Philly said that too.

That had also happened in Wisonsin, right before they passed the concealed carry law. Several people were sitting at a table outside a restaurant, carrying openly, and were arrested for disorderly conduct. For just sitting there.

 

[jbombelli]

One could be charged with disorderly if they were [STRIKE]ocing and started [/STRIKE]causing a scene and continued to do so after being told to stop.

The OC has nothing to do with it. A person doesn't have to be causing a scene. He just has to be making sound YOU feel is "unreasonable."

 

[KG1]

One could be threatened with arrest and or charged with disorderly if they were ocing and started [STRIKE]causing a scene[/STRIKE] standing up for their legal rights when confronted by LE and continued to do so after being [STRIKE]told[/STRIKE] unlawfully ordered under the threat of arrest and revocation of their LTCH to stop legally OC'ing and cover up.

FIFY

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

A person doesn't have to be causing a scene. He just has to be making sound YOU feel is "unreasonable."

I don't know how it is in the county where j706 works, but in Marion County the unreasonableness is determined by the involvement of a 3rd party. If someone is just yelling at the police and no one else is distracted or disturbed by the "sound", it isn't disorderly conduct.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't know how it is in the county where j706 works, but in Marion County the unreasonableness is determined by the involvement of a 3rd party. If someone is just yelling at the police and no one else is distracted or disturbed by the "sound", it isn't disorderly conduct.

That may very well be the case here, too. But...

The code itself doesn't mention anything about a third party, and I've read in the past about people being arrested for "disorderly conduct" for yelling at a police officer. It was once described to me as a "catch all" charge. That doesn't mean they'll be convicted, but they can certainly be arrested. The person just has to make sound that is "unreasonably loud for the circumstances."


Johnson v. State:

"Johnson argued in a voice louder than the voices of others in the room. Johnson's volume prevented the police officers from asking additional questions in an effort to resolve the situation. This was true both before and after Officer Atzhorn asked Johnson to be quiet. It makes no difference that Johnson was not yelling or screaming. The question is whether Johnson's volume was too loud under the circumstances. Id. Because Johnson's loud manner of speaking disrupted a police investigation, the trial
court's conclusion that Johnson made unreasonable noise is supported by the evidence."

Further down in that decision...

"The police must be able to perform their work without unreasonable interruption when they are conducting a legitimate investigation. "

Carlos Johnson v. State :: November, 1999 :: Indiana Court of Appeals Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia


Now if a cop is asking me questions and I keep interrupting him so he can't ask them... apparently I can be charged with Disorderly Conduct? And it will stick? After all, if it's just a question of "too loud for the circumstances", that's a completely subjective thing not requiring any third party whatsoever.

 

[TTB Yeee]

Double thread jack, but Three Floyds is in quite a few places in Indy; you just gotta know where to look!

Yeah, but the only thing left on the shelves is Alpha King and Pride & Joy, which are not worth the price.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Now if a cop is asking me questions and I keep interrupting him so he can't ask them... apparently I can be charged with Disorderly Conduct? And it will stick? After all, if it's just a question of "too loud for the circumstances", that's a completely subjective thing not requiring any third party whatsoever.

If it was me asking you the questions, I'd ask you if you were going to keep interrupting me. If you say yes and I don't have any reason to continue the conversation, I would leave and go about my business. I have had to do that on several occasions.

I know the statute doesn't say anything about a 3rd party, but the Marion County Prosecutor's Office won't file the charge if there isn't one involved.

 

[jbombelli]

If it was me asking you the questions, I'd ask you if you were going to keep interrupting me. If you say yes and I don't have any reason to continue the conversation, I would leave and go about my business. I have had to do that on several occasions.

I know the statute doesn't say anything about a 3rd party, but the Marion County Prosecutor's Office won't file the charge if there isn't one involved.

Ah. I guess that falls under prosecutorial discretion.

Personally, I'm not so rude that I'd keep interrupting like that. But I do like to say "excuse me for speaking while you're interrupting" on occasion.

 

[cp009]

Three Floyd's FTW!!!!!!


Sorry had too...

 

[88E30M50]

What about section 3.(a).(3)? That simply states 'disrupts a lawful assembly of persons'. That seems to leave a whole lot of leeway for charges to be brought. If you are minding your own business, but a table full of liberals get into a tizzy because you are OC'ing, an anti-gun cop could decide that your OC'ing was disrupting the lawful assembly.

It's a stretch, but I think it's ambiguous enough to stick if you refused to cover up or leave a public place.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What about section 3.(a).(3)? That simply states 'disrupts a lawful assembly of persons'. That seems to leave a whole lot of leeway for charges to be brought. If you are minding your own business, but a table full of liberals get into a tizzy because you are OC'ing, an anti-gun cop could decide that your OC'ing was disrupting the lawful assembly.

It's a stretch, but I think it's ambiguous enough to stick if you refused to cover up or leave a public place.

No it doesn't work like that. If that were the case Heckler's Veto would have rule of law over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. A legal activity absent any aggrevating circumstances can't be used for DC.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Did someone say my name?

*goes back and reads the thread in whole*

I'm flattered, but I'm afraid you're gonna be disappointed in me. No court case that I have researched has even touched upon Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace. The only place I even recall reading the phrase, "disturbing the peace" in the Code is in IC 3-5-4-4, which gives it as one of three criteria, along with treason and committing a felony, which must be satisfied for a valid arrest while travelling to, at, or travelling from a polling place on on election day.

The closest linkage to firearms carry I can bring to mind are Gaddis (threat), and Johnson (intimidation) with the overt demonstration of the possession of a firearm, neither were the passive display of a firearm being OC'ed.

There's been some mention of a person persistently interrupting a police officer's question. What of a LEO persistently interrupting a person's answers to the LEO's questions? Does that not fluster and frustrate the average person? Would that not entice a person into an emotional state in which the officer could then claim the person was making unreasonable noise? If I felt that a police officer was refusing to hear me out, I might be enticed to raise my voice in order to make my answers better heard. Especially, if it was a situation of a maleducated police officer attempting to enforce his misapprehension of the law (especially firearms law) as if it were law in violation of Gunn v State, even if what he were taught about firearms laws may have been accurate back when he graduated ILEA, but has since changed, even if changed radicly.

Frank's view into the world of the Marion Co. Prosecutor is fascinating, but as was mentioned, it's prosecutorial discretion, not a mandate of the letter of the law.

All that being said, I will never succumb to a heckler's veto.

 

[Somemedic]

Thank you Cathy. Yes... there are certain cats on here I watch and when they speak notes get taken.

I may have confused a former thread about WI law...

Disorderly conduct is bar to gun ownership | Wisconsin Law Journal - WI Legal News & Resources

 

[88E30M50]

No it doesn't work like that. If that were the case Heckler's Veto would have rule of law over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. A legal activity absent any aggrevating circumstances can't be used for DC.

That's good news.