Discussion - Disorderly Conduct ???

imported post

What is your take when you are approached by a LEO that is stating that your being "investigated" for "disorderly conduct", which could be construed as "criminal conduct"due to the fact that you are OCing ??

Here is something interesting that I found in Utah codes,

76-2-101. Requirements of criminal conduct and criminal responsibility.
(1) (a) A person is not guilty of an offense unless the person's conduct is prohibited by law; and
(b) (i) the person acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, as the definition of the offense requires; or
(ii) the person's acts constitute an offense involving strict liability.
(2) These standards of criminal responsibility do not apply to the violations set forth in Title 41, Chapter 6a, Traffic Code, unless specifically provided by law.


Amended by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WordPerfect 76_02_010100.ZIP 2,178 Bytes


[line]

Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page


Last revised: Thursday, May 01, 2008


Am I WAY of base on this one. Just asking what you guys think of this.

TJ

imported post

I'd just start laughing.

Like this: :lol:

Only less yellow.

imported post

I would laconically reply, "Cool, let me know how it all turns out."

imported post

I would respond with.....

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I would respond with.....

Click to expand...

Buwaaaaahahahahahaha!!!:lol:

This is why we love you man.....




P.S. If you ever make me snort Fat Tire Pale Ale again, I'm filing a complaint....

imported post

Mike wrote:

I would laconically reply, "Cool, let me know how it all turns out."

Click to expand...

I'll go with the concept behind Mike's reply.

Rephrased, "Officer, I realize you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter and I have nothing to say in the absense of my attorney."

But I guess what you really want to know is our analysis of the applicability of DC to OCin the presence of76-2-101.

I don't think it will help much. If they come at you for DC, "causing alarm," etc., they're basically saying whatever you're doing is illegal, and thus outside the protections of 76-2-101.

For example, OC in your home wouldn't cause alarm, and since it is otherwise legal itwouldn't be actionable in the presence of 76-2-101, or even its absence. But causing alarm is illegal (in this example).So, the OC is legal. But causing alarm isn't, so they try to get you for causing alarm, not OC.

It seems thatall that clause in 76-2-101 does iscodify the obvious. If it ain't illegal, you can't be found guilty of it.If it isn't against the law, then there is neither offense, nor guilt.

imported post

I guess I would ask if I am being detained. If I was, then I would say "state your cause or suspicion" and then I would probably clam up.

When it got to court, I (through my lawyer) would ask the officer to describe the disorder in question. A charge of disorderly conduct logically implies that there was some sort of disorder going on at the scene of the arrest.

imported post

We seem to have a problem with Disorderly Conduct here in Utah, The officers really like to fall back on that when you are DOING NOTHING WRONG.

imported post

And in Wisconsin.