I don't understand the need to have a law that says you shouldn't be arrested for lawful activity.
^ Exactly.Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, expressed his frustration for the need for such a law. He said that the Legislature had already set policy in this area and that local agencies needed to heed the Legislature's call on the matter.
"Frankly, this bill should not be necessary," Herrod said. "I'm saddened that it has to be brought forward."
Furthermore, I am not sure how much this bill really does other than clarify against silly interpretations of statutes. It does not appear to add any additional civil or criminal liability to the officer making the arrest.
Our own disorderly conduct is as follows:
Jury InstructionsOriginally Posted by Sec. 53a-182
So all that being said, I would suggest that an even better clause to our statute would be as follows:Originally Posted by Specific Intent
Even though courts have made this language pretty damned clear:Originally Posted by Sec. 53a-182
Originally Posted by http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5964393357805156275&hl=en&as_sdt =2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrThis case resulted in this note below the statute:The concept of the reasonable person runs throughout the law and the concept of contemporary community standards has roots in obscenity law jurisprudence. Thus, this standard should ensure that a person of ordinary intelligence has reasonable notice of what the law permits or forbids.
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.