Utah Disorderly Conduct Lawyer

Salt Lake City Disorderly Conduct Attorney

Many people wrongly think, "Hey, it’s just disorderly conduct, so I’ll simply plead guilty. After all, the fine’s no big deal, and I just want this whole stupid thing to go way."

Remember: Anything that goes onto your criminal record is a big deal! We’ve seen people lose their jobs because of "stupid things" on their records. And when you plead guilty, it does NOT just go away, in fact, by pleading guilty, you are marrying it.

Do not do this. Call us today, so that we can fight for you, and protect your rights. Even if you feel you are guilty, you still have rights, and we can still negotiate on your behalf.

"Disorderly Conduct" can be a very frustrating charge to get. After all, isn’t this supposed to be a "free" country? The answer is "yes", and that is why courts often struggle with this crime, and is why many of these cases get thrown out of court. Some cops feel like they need to charge a person with something, so this is the one they choose. It’s sort of like a one-size-fits-all crime. So, if you look at somebody cross-eyed, you may get a disorderly conduct violation.

The legal definitions are typically very vague. Generally, the legal definition of "Disorderly Conduct" is any behavior that tends to "disturb the public peace or decorum, scandalize the community, or shock the public sense of morality." Or, it can be an offense against "public morals, peace or safety." Black’s Law Dictionary (Abrid. 6th Ed.) (1991).

In other words, wearing a skimpy bikini can get you cited, so can spitting on the sidewalk.

However, disorderly conduct statutes must sufficiently specify the prohibited conduct or they may be held unconstitutional.

The Model Penal Code provides government the follow Disorderly Conduct sample:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensive coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. Model Penal Code, § 250.2.

The famous example of disorderly conduct used by law professors, legal scholars, attorneys and judges is when one yells fire in a crowd theater causing panic.

Disorderly Conduct charges are easily filed, but hard to prove. For example, disorderly conduct charges have been filed when somebody warned other drivers about an upcoming speed trap. They have been filed against public drunkards for walking home from a bar.

In Utah, disorderly conduct charges have been met with scorn by the courts in many cases. For example, in State v. Richards, 779 P.2d 689 (Utah Ct. App. 1989), the Utah Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for disorderly conduct when all the witnesses stated that although they could hear voices and there appeared to be a confrontation going on in the defendant’s home, the conversation was never loud enough to be understood outside. The court said that could not be classified as "unreasonable noise."

However, in State v. Griego, 933 P.2d 1003 (Utah Ct. App. 1997), the Utah Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for disorderly conduct when the defendant was hitting officers and yelling obscenities in public. Obscene language is a tricky area of the law that also involves a lot of First Amendment issues.

In Utah, Disorderly Conduct charges can be filed under two different State laws.

The first, Utah Code Section 76-9-102 provides:

76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.

• (1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
  • (a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
  • (b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
    • (i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
    • (ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
    • (iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or
    • (iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
• (2) "Public place," for the purpose of this section, means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes but is not limited to streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.
• (3) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by a person to desist. Otherwise it is an infraction.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-102 (Supp. 2008).

This code closely resembles the Model Penal Code. Therefore, it’s a tough statute to challenge under the Constitution.

The second statute, Utah Code Section 76-10-1506, appears to follow no model code, but clearly seemed to be enacted at the request of the Utah Transit Authority. It provides:

• 76-10-1506. Threatening breach of peace – Disorderly conduct – Foul language – Refusing requests – Use of controlled substance, liquor, or tobacco – Ejection of passenger.
• (1) A person is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, if the person:
• (a) threatens a breach of the peace, is disorderly, or uses obscene, profane, or vulgar language on a bus;
• (b) is in or upon any bus while unlawfully under the influence of a controlled substance as defined in Section 58-37-2;
• (c) fails to obey a reasonable request or order of a bus driver, bus company representative, a nondrinking designee other than the driver as provided in Subsection 32A-12-213(3)(c)(ii), or other person in charge or control of a bus or terminal;
• (d) ingests any controlled substance, unless prescribed by a physician or medical facility, in or upon any bus, or drinks intoxicating liquor in or upon any bus, except a chartered bus as defined and provided in Sections 32A-1-105 and 41-6a-526; or
• (e) smokes tobacco or other products in or upon any bus, except a chartered bus.
• (2) If any person violates Subsection (1), the driver of the bus or person in charge thereof may stop at the place where the offense is committed or at the next regular or convenient stopping place and remove such person, using only such force as may be necessary to accomplish the removal, and the driver or person in charge may request the assistance of passengers to assist in the removal.
• (3) The driver or person in charge may cause the person so removed to be detained and delivered to the proper authorities.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1506 (Supp. 2008).

Trying these cases are difficult, and settling them can be even harder without the experience of a trained professional. If charged with disorderly conduct, whether you feel guilty or not, please call Brent Smith and Associates for a free consultation and case review.

Recently, the Associated Press ran a story out of American Fork on November 18, 2009. The story concerned a group of four teenagers who rapped out their order in a McDonald’s drive-up window. Now, rap music does not violate the law, even though many people feel it should.

The rap began with "I need a double cheeseburger and hold the lettuce. . . ." copying a popular YouTube video. The employees told the teens they had to leave, and so they did without buying anything. A manager wrote down the license plate and the police were called. The teen had charges filed in State court.

To many, the case seemed like a ridiculous one, which violated the First Amendment.

Attorney Kasey Wright, who represented American Fork, said the case wasn’t about free speech. "This is not a First Amendment case," he said. "This is disturbing the peace. It’s interrupting a business."

Wright said he’s open to working out a deal in the case "if it can serve the demands of justice and the public interest." He said the trial likely wouldn’t last more than an hour and is similar to what would happen if someone fought a speeding ticket in court.

Here is the article By Elizabeth White of the Associated Press, which ran on November 18th, 2009.

SALT LAKE CITY – The case of one of four teens who were cited [given a ticket] after rapping their order at a McDonald’s in Utah appears headed for trial.

Police in [the City of] American Fork, about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City, cited the teens with disorderly conduct last month after the drive-through rap.

The teens have said they were imitating a rap from a popular YouTube video, which begins: "I need a double cheeseburger and hold the lettuce."

Spenser Dauwalder, 18, has said employees at the fast-food restaurant told him and his friends they were holding up the line and needed to order or leave.

But Dauwalder said no one else was in line. He and his three 17-year-old friends left without buying anything.

A manager wrote down the car’s license plate number and called authorities, police Sgt. Gregg Ludlow has said. Officers later cited the teens in a high school parking lot outside a volleyball match.

"We thought, you know, just teenagers out having fun," Dauwalder told KSL Newsradio last month. "We didn’t think it would escalate to that."

Dauwalder is challenging the disorderly conduct infraction in state court in Utah County. He pleaded not guilty earlier this month, and at a hearing Wednesday, a bench trial was set for Jan. 29, said his mother, Sharon Dauwalder.

"It’s just, it’s wrong," Sharon Dauwalder said. "I think the whole thing is wrong."

Spenser Dauwalder’s attorney said the whole incident has been overblown.

"I just believe that the kids had a right to sing their order," Boyle said. "They asked them to leave, and they left."

But attorney Kasey Wright, who represented American Fork in court Wednesday, said the case isn’t about free speech.

"This is not a First Amendment case," he said. "This is disturbing the peace. It’s interrupting a business."

Wright said he’s open to working out a deal in the case "if it can serve the demands of justice and the public interest." He said the trial likely wouldn’t last more than an hour and is similar to what would happen if someone fought a speeding ticket in court.

Source: Elizabeth White, Associated Press