Could You Arrest the Westoro Idiots in Your State?

[Pudge]

Has that been charged anytime recently? And was it contested?

Yes sir, time and time again. It's held every time.


The only solid argument I'm aware of just off the top of my head has been whether a person's spouse and children could be considered offended if it was said in their presence. (Not in the home, obviously)

[jmur5074]

Yes sir, time and time again. It's held every time.


The only solid argument I'm aware of just off the top of my head has been whether a person's spouse and children could be considered offended if it was said in their presence. (Not in the home, obviously)

Let's compare, if you have it handy.

Our city code says:
No person shall, in the City, in any place of public resort or within the hearing of another persons, use obscene language.

The last time this was charged, it was dismissed by the pros. atty because he didn't feel it would hold up against a constitutional challenge. That was probably 1 1/2 yrs ago.

[Pudge]

Let's compare, if you have it handy.

Our city code says:
No person shall, in the City, in any place of public resort or within the hearing of another persons, use obscene language.

The last time this was charged, it was dismissed by the pros. atty because he didn't feel it would hold up against a constitutional challenge. That was probably 1 1/2 yrs ago.

Sure. Our Ohio Revised Code Section. Area applying to language in bold.

2917.11
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.
(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:
(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;
(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.
(C) Violation of any statute or ordinance of which an element is operating a motor vehicle, locomotive, watercraft, aircraft, or other vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, is not a violation of division (B) of this section.
(D) If a person appears to an ordinary observer to be intoxicated, it is probable cause to believe that person is voluntarily intoxicated for purposes of division (B) of this section.
(E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (E)(3) of this section, disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies:
(a) The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.
(b) The offense is committed in the vicinity of a school or in a school safety zone.
(c) The offense is committed in the presence of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person who is engaged in the person’s duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.
(d) The offense is committed in the presence of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person’s duties in an emergency facility.
(F) As used in this section:
(1) “Emergency medical services person” is the singular of “emergency medical services personnel” as defined in section 2133.21 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Emergency facility person” is the singular of “emergency facility personnel” as defined in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
(3) “Emergency facility” has the same meaning as in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
(4) “Committed in the vicinity of a school” has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.

On any given arraignment day, every week in our Court you'll find several DC charges. It's usually a nice mix of DC via Intox, Engaging in fighting behavior (reduced by the PA from Assault, Domestic, or Menacing), and via offensive language in the presence of others. Convictions for DC are rarely, if ever a problem.

[Cidp24]

SEC. 97-35-3. Disorderly conduct; certain acts performed with intent to provoke breach of peace; penalties.

(1) Whoever with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby:

(a) crowds or congregates with others in or upon shore protecting structure or structures, or a public street or public highway, or upon a public sidewalk, or any other public place, or in any hotel, motel, store, restaurant, lunch counter, cafeteria, sandwich shop, motion picture theatre, drive-in, beauty parlor, swimming pool area, or any sports or recreational area or place, or any other place of business engaged in selling or serving members of the public, or in or around any free entrance to any such place of business or public building, or to any building owned by another individual, or a corporation, or a partnership or an association, and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on, or disperse or move on, when ordered so to do by any law enforcement officer of any municipality, or county, in which such act or acts are committed, or by any law enforcement officer of the State of Mississippi, or any other authorized person, or

(b) insults or makes rude or obscene remarks or gestures, or uses profane language, or physical acts, or indecent proposals to or toward another or others, or disturbs or obstructs or interferes with another or others, or

shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, which is made a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00), or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than four (4) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(2) If any person shall be guilty of disorderly conduct as defined herein and such conduct shall lead to a breach of the peace or incite a riot in any of the places herein named, and as a result of said breach of the peace or riot another person or persons shall be maimed, killed or injured, then the person guilty of such disorderly conduct as defined herein shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction such person shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not longer than ten (10) years.
Full law at link
97-35-3. Disorderly conduct; certain acts performed with intent to provoke breach of peace; penalties.

Or

SEC. 97-35-15. Disturbance of the public peace or the peace of others.

(1) Any person who disturbs the public peace, or the peace of others, by violent, or loud, or insulting, or profane, or indecent, or offensive, or boisterous conduct or language, or by intimidation, or seeking to intimidate any other person or persons, or by conduct either calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or by conduct which may lead to a breach of the peace, or by any other act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six (6) months, or both.
(2) The provisions of this section are supplementary to the provisions of any other statute of this state.

Under the right circumstances, this could probably be used here. I think it would fail if taken up the court system if WBC was peaceful and did not violate other laws regarding demonstrations.

The WBC was supposed to be here for a military funeral once but did not show.

[lewisipso]

If any of the various state statues are considered constitutionally a no go they should be challenged and taken off the books. We have statues on our books that local judges refuse to allow for prosecution. It irritates me to continually see them put back on the books year after year. You would think law makers would figure this out.

[MacLean]

Yes sir, time and time again. It's held every time.

Most assholes don't have thousand dollar an hour lawyers willing to fight to the SCOTUS.

Westboro assholes do.

[MacLean]

Maybe there, but here that word had better be Frankfurter if two or more individuals not to include LE are within earshot or it'd be a MM Disorderly Conduct or M4 after a warning to cease.

Except I'm bright enough to find a lawyer willing to go farther than you've run into yet.

Most toothless fuckers screaming it out loud aren't.

[Pudge]

Except I'm bright enough to find a lawyer willing to go farther than you've run into yet.

Most toothless fuckers screaming it out loud aren't.

And in the meantime, I'll enforce that one all day long. I hate to make a "shotgun" style remark and have no imformation behind it at the moment, but I'd speculate that some others with the resources have certainly tried to take it past a Municipal Court setting in the years its been on the books.

[MacLean]

Love to hear if anyone has ever appealed it. My best guess is not.

I'm not telling anyone how to do their job, but the day I arrest someone for using a bad word is the day I'm done in this business.

[Pudge]

Love to hear if anyone has ever appealed it. My best guess is not.

I'm not telling anyone how to do their job, but the day I arrest someone for using a bad word is the day I'm done in this business.

Oh, I know you're not. No worries.

And to make sure I'm not confusing, I'm not talking simply for speaking a bad word in a private conversation. I'm talking about in the context of standing on their front lawn screaming the F word. Granted, that applies to my jurisdiction, which is municipal. In the situation you mentioned, I wouldn't arrest you for it at your house, because from my understanding of where your house is situated around others there's not much chance that it's going to be heard by anyone other than you, me, and maybe your family.

If it's loud enough that it's likely to be heard by others who aren't the residents of the house, or Law Enforcement, then that's where there is a problem. That's the appropriate scenario for it.


The day I don't take action on an established law that applies and is the best possible outcome to the situation I'm dealing with, because there could be an appeal or legal fight in the future is the day I step aside or into a division I'm not forced to make those decisions.

[Cidp24]

I'm for civil liberties but I really don't understand how a guy can stand in his back yard yelling the "F" word in a manner that can be heard in my back yard by my family/kids. Do I not have the right to not be offended on my on property and to raise my children as much as possible without exposure to that?

I still don't see how anyone can cause harm to another, even if it is emotional, with immunity. That is exactly what WBC is doing.

[MacLean]

In the situation you mentioned, I wouldn't arrest you for it at your house, because from my understanding of where your house is situated around others there's not much chance that it's going to be heard by anyone other than you, me, and maybe your family.

I could stand on a street corner in Washington and do it.

I get where you're coming from, I just couldn't do what you're suggesting.

[lewisipso]

I'm for civil liberties but I really don't understand how a guy can stand in his back yard yelling the "F" word in a manner that can be heard in my back yard by my family/kids can hear. Do I not have the right to not be offended on my on property and to raise my children as much as possible without exposure to that?

I still don't see how anyone can cause harm to another, even if it is emotional, with immunity. That is exactly what WBC is doing.

This.

[ChesCopPodz]

That's exactly what I was talking about.

If you need to start making up reasons to arrest someone, you lose.

It may offend your delicate sensibilities, but I can stand in my yard and yell the F word all day long.

You can raise the noise issue after dark.

Here you'd lose. You'd get charged with disorderly conduct, wouldn't matter what time of day. Anyone can stand in their yard and SAY anything they want. If a family is outside in their yard next door and are offended, and someone's YELLING it, they'll get charged.

Although the police can't simply charge someone for yelling curse words. Has to be a victim charging the person with us just filling out the summons.

[Five-0]

I'm for civil liberties but I really don't understand how a guy can stand in his back yard yelling the "F" word in a manner that can be heard in my back yard by my family/kids can hear. Do I not have the right to not be offended on my on property and to raise my children as much as possible without exposure to that?

I still don't see how anyone can cause harm to another, even if it is emotional, with immunity. That is exactly what WBC is doing.

See here that would cross the line to harassment not a catch all disorderly conduct charge. Here disorderly has some specific aspects that I have no problem using it for ie obstructing traffic and disrupting a public meeting.

[Pudge]

See here that would cross the line to harassment not a catch all disorderly conduct charge. Here disorderly has some specific aspects that I have no problem using it for ie obstructing traffic and disrupting a public meeting.

The difference in laws and how they're interpreted never fail to intrigue me. Here there is no such thing as a criminal harassment code. The closest is named "Telecommunications Harassment" and that's merely unwanted phone calls.

[Five-0]

The difference in laws and how they're interpreted never fail to intrigue me. Here there is no such thing as a criminal harassment code. The closest is named "Telecommunications Harassment" and that's merely unwanted phone calls.

Section 13A-11-8

[MacLean]

We have a harassment charge.

To go felony, you need to be making threats of bodily injury or death.

Nowhere in there would swear words fall, unless you followed someone around yelling them and it created some fear.

[ChesCopPodz]

Here it would be harassment if it was aimed at a particular person.

For DC, it would have to offend someone.

With the westboro idiots, they'd be protected under the assembly laws.

[MacLean]

See, now that is bass ackwards.

Why do we need an "assembly law" when the first amendment pretty much negates any law contrary to free assembly?

I'll tell you why - because we've written laws contrary to the first amendment and had to write other laws to make sure we didn't step too far.

*shakes head*