Jefferson County

Ft. Atkinson Ord. said:

§ Sec. 58-73. Disorderly conduct.
No person shall within the limits of the city commit any of the following offenses:
(1) Engage in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct in a public or private place under the circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance or tends to reasonably disturb or annoy any other person.
(2) Make a telephone call, whether or not the telephone conversation ensues, with intent to annoy another.
(3) Operate a motor vehicle so as to cause the tires thereof to squeal, the horn to blow excessively, the motor to race excessively, or by emitting unnecessary and loud muffler noises.
(4) Engage in any fight, brawl or altercation on any street, alley or other public or private ground.
(5) Prowl about the premises of another in the nighttime, or peek in windows on another's premises, or do any other act intended, or naturally tending, to frighten or alarm other persons.
(6) Give or send or cause to be given or sent in any manner an alarm of fire that he/she knows to be false.
(7) Without reasonable excuse or justification, resist or in any way interfere with any officer of the city while such officer is doing any act in his/her official capacity with lawful authority.
(8) Intentionally aid any prisoner or person to escape from the lawful custody of a police officer or peace officer of the city.
(9) Impersonate a police officer or peace officer within the city.
(10) Be in any public place within the city in such a state of intoxication as to disturb others or the safety of others.
(Code 1969, § 17.01(A)--(C), (E)--(K))

Click to expand...

Wisc. Stats. said:

§ 947.01 Disorderly conduct.
Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 131.

The defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct when he appeared on a stage wearing a minimum of clothing intending to and succeeding in causing a loud reaction in the audience. State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).

An attorney was properly convicted under this section for refusing to leave a ward in a mental hospital until he had seen a client after having made statements in the presence of patients that caused some to become agitated. State v. Elson, 60 Wis. 2d 54, 208 N.W.2d 363 (1973).

It was not disorderly conduct for 4 people to enter an office with other members of the public for the purpose of protesting the draft and to refuse to leave on orders of the police when their conduct was not otherwise disturbing. State v. Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d 668, 211 N.W.2d 437 (1973).

This statute does not require a victim, but when the disorderly conduct is directed at a person, that person is the victim for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrator for intimidating a victim under s. 940.44. State v. Vinje, 201 Wis. 2d 98, 548 N.W.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1996), 95−1484.

A “true threat” is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99−1924.

Purely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected “abusive” conduct. “Abusive” conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. “True threats” clearly fall
within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99−1767.

Application of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S. 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99−2317.

Disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. This section encompasses conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that is personal or private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that the disturbance or disruption will spill over and disrupt the peace, order, or safety of the surrounding community as well. Sending repeated, unwelcome, and anonymous mailings was otherwise disorderly conduct.” State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666, 99−3204.

Defiance of a police officer’s order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful. Bruan v. Baldwin, 346 F.3d 761 (2003).

Click to expand...

Wisc. Stats. said:

§ 939.63 Penalties; use of a dangerous weapon.
(1) If a person commits a crime while possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for that crime may be increased as follows:
(a) The maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor may be increased by not more than 6 months.
[ ... ]
(2) The increased penalty provided in this section does not apply if possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon is an essential element of the crime charged.

(3) This section applies only to crimes specified under chs.939 to 951 and 961.
History: 1979 c. 114; 1981 c. 212; 1987 a. 332 s. 64; 1995 a. 448; 2001 a. 109.

The fact that the maximum term for a misdemeanor may exceed one year under sub. (1) (a) 1. does not upgrade the crime to felony status. State v. Denter, 121 Wis.2d 118, 357 N.W.2d 555 (1984).

Possession encompasses both actual and constructive possession. To prove a violation of this section, the state must prove that the defendant possessed the weapon to facilitate the predicate offense. State v. Peete, 185 Wis. 2d 255, 517 N.W.2d 149 (1994). See also State v. Howard, 211 Wis. 2d 269, 564 N.W.2d 753 (1997), 95−0770.

An automobile may constitute a dangerous weapon under s. 939.22 (10). State v.Bidwell, 200 Wis. 2d 200, 546 N.W.2d 507 (Ct. App. 1996).

Under Peete, there is sufficient evidence of possession if the evidence allows a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon in order to use it or threaten to use it, even if the defendant did not use or threaten to use it in the commission of the crime. State v. Page, 2000 WI App 267,
240 Wis. 2d 276, 622 N.W.2d 285, 99−2015.

When two penalty enhancers are applicable to the same crime, the length of the second penalty enhancer is based on the maximum term for the base crime as extended by the first penalty enhancer. State v. Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52, 251 Wis. 2d 245, 641 N.W.2d 715, 01−1549.

Click to expand...

Shorin21 said:

Anyone know of any future plans/or needs help with future plans of an oc event in the Jefferson County area. Whitewater, Fort Atkinson, Palmyra, Watertown?????

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Spartacus said:

There was a guy at the meet-up Sunday in Delavan who was from Palmyra and was nervous about ocing there... something to do with threats from the local PD; I forget exactly, so yes it would be a good area to get into.

Click to expand...

Shorin21 said:

That was me.there wasnt any threats from the PD. From what they told me that you couldnt oc is what made me nervous, and the fact that i didnt want to be harrassed..

Click to expand...

Shotgun said:

Palmyra does have a preempted ordinance on the books:

9.02 DISCHARGING AND CARRYING FIREARMS AND GUNS PROHIBITED.

(1) No person, except a sheriff, constable, police officer or their deputies, shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun within the Village or have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.

Click to expand...

That was me.there wasnt any threats from the PD. From what they told me that you couldnt oc is what made me nervous, and the fact that i didnt want to be harrassed..

Click to expand...

Doug Huffman said:

Well said. Preempted but locally enforceable.

Click to expand...

Wisconsin Carry said:

Doug, this is a prime example of what I believe is a disservice to members on this forum.

You mislead people.

Palmyra would be breaking the law by enforcing a pre-empted ordinance.

Click to expand...

Wisconsin Carry said:

Doug, this is a prime example of what I believe is a disservice to members on this forum. You mislead people. Palmyra would be breaking the law by enforcing a pre-empted ordinance.

Click to expand...

Doug Huffman said:

We don't want the naive to presume wrongly. You presume wrongly some acquaintance, that I am addressed so familiarly.

Click to expand...

Spartacus said:

Keerist get the stick out of your a$$ will you? Whats the matter with you?

Click to expand...

Doug Huffman said:

I find you and chairman to be very unpleasant. Why, what did think, that I like impertinent, crude and rude characters?

Click to expand...

J.Gleason said:

Look in the mirror.

Click to expand...