The charges have been dropped!

Glad you're free of that **** man.

REALteach4u said:

If you would be so kind....

Would you post up the official cause for the Disorderly Conduct charge? If there is a particular statute or municipal code they used to hit you with the DC charge, please post that up.

I'm with others on this, especially OC for ME...don't wait. Get a suit filed pronto! If your name made it into the media or on the web in regards to this then the damage is practically irreversible. If you wait they'll sweep it under the rug and it will be business as usual.

Click to expand...

Here's our DC section for reference: http://www.stjoemo.info/clerk/chap20.pdf

Sec. 20-188. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Definitions. The following words, terms
and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection,
except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:

(1) Incite a riot means but is not limited to
urging or instigating other persons to riot,
but shall not be deemed to mean the mere
oral or written:
a. Advocacy of ideas; or
b. Expression of belief, not involving
advocacy of any act or acts of
violence or assertion of the rightness
of or the right to commit any such
act.

(2) Riot means a public disturbance
involving:
a. An act of violence by one or more
persons, part of an assemblage of
three or more persons, which act shall
constitute a clear and present danger
of or shall result in damage or injury
to the property of any other person or
to the person of any other individual;
or
b. A threat of the commission of an act
of having, individually or
collectively, the ability of immediate
execution of such threat, where the
performance of the threatened act of
violence would constitute a clear and
present danger of or would result in
damage or injury to the property of
any other person or to the person of
any other individual.



(b) Conduct prohibited. A person shall be
guilty of disorderly conduct if he wilfully does
any of the following acts:

(1) Commits an act in a violent and
tumultuous manner toward another
whereby that other is placed in danger of
his life, limb or health.

(2) Commits an act in a violent and
tumultuous manner toward another
whereby the property of any person is
placed in danger of being destroyed or
damaged.

(3) Causes, provokes or engages in any fight,
brawl or riotous conduct so as to
endanger the life, limb, health or property
of another.

(4) Interferes with another's pursuit of a
lawful occupation by acts of violence.

(5) Obstructs, either singly or together with
other persons, the flow of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic in a public way and
refuses to clear such public way when
ordered to do so by the city police.

(6) Resists, by using or threatening the use of
violence or physical force, the performance of duties by city police or
any other authorized official of the city,
when known to be such an official, or
flees to evade apprehension or arrest from
city police or any other authorized official
of the city, when known to be such an
official.

(7) Obstructs, either by action or inaction, the
performance of duties by city police or
any other authorized official of the city
when known to be such an official.

(8) Incites, attempts to incite or is involved in
attempting to incite a riot.

(9) Addresses words to any member of the
city police department, any other
authorized official of the city who is
engaged in the lawful performance of his
duties or any other person when such
words by their very utterance tend to
incite violence. Words merely causing
displeasure, annoyance or resentment are
not prohibited.

(10) Damages, befouls or disturbs public
property or the property of another so as
to create a hazardous, unhealthy or
physically offensive condition.

(11) Makes or causes to be made any loud or
boisterous noise or disturbance on or in
any public place whereby the public
peace is broken or disturbed.

(12) Fails to obey a lawful order to disperse by
a police officer, when known to be such
an official, where one or more persons are
committing acts of disorderly conduct in
the immediate vicinity, and the public
health and safety is imminently
threatened.
(c) Exemptions. This section shall not be
construed to suppress the right to lawful
assembly, picketing, public speaking or other
lawful means of expressing public opinion not in
contravention of other laws.
(Gen. Ord. No. 879, § 1(16-129), 7-8-91)

I bet they would say it was this if he were to go to court , even though we all know it's just more BS . :banghead:

(7) Obstructs, either by action or inaction, the
performance of duties by city police or
any other authorized official of the city
when known to be such an official.

Festus_Hagen said:

I bet they would say it was this if he were to go to court , even though we all know it's just more BS . :banghead:

(7) Obstructs, either by action or inaction, the
performance of duties by city police or
any other authorized official of the city
when known to be such an official.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was charged with! Specifically "Obstructing by failure to provide ID"

Reverend BCal said:

That's exactly what I was charged with! Specifically "Obstructing by failure to provide ID"

Click to expand...

That's freakin' BS and THEY know it as well. I wish a lawyer would just take this and run with it .

Ok, another question. Although Missouri does not have a Statute stating you must provide ID, does your municipality have such a requirement on the books? If so, I can see where that charge would come into play. But, my issue is that if there is no RAS to request your ID then the LEO is not being obstructed from completing his or her duties....period.

Because they went straight to that municipal code tells me that they use it a lot and folks just don't know how dangerous it really is.

Hypothetical that would get you the same chage:

LEO: Sir, come over here, I need to talk to you.
Citizen: Am I being detained with RAS for a crime that you have reason to believe that I have committed?
LEO: No, I just need to see your ID.
Citizen: If I am not being detained, am I free to leave?
LEO: No, just comply with what I've asked you to do and give me your ID.
Citizen: Am I being detained with RAS for a crime that you have reason to believe that I have committed?
LEO: Fine, you can go to jail.

Result: Charge of disorderly conduct by obstruction through inaction.

REALteach4u said:

Ok, another question. Although Missouri does not have a Statute stating you must provide ID, does your municipality have such a requirement on the books? If so, I can see where that charge would come into play. But, my issue is that if there is no RAS to request your ID then the LEO is not being obstructed from completing his or her duties....period.

Because they went straight to that municipal code tells me that they use it a lot and folks just don't know how dangerous it really is.

Hypothetical that would get you the same chage:

LEO: Sir, come over here, I need to talk to you.
Citizen: Am I being detained with RAS for a crime that you have reason to believe that I have committed?
LEO: No, I just need to see your ID.
Citizen: If I am not being detained, am I free to leave?
LEO: No, just comply with what I've asked you to do and give me your ID.
Citizen: Am I being detained with RAS for a crime that you have reason to believe that I have committed?
LEO: Fine, you can go to jail.

Result: Charge of disorderly conduct by obstruction through inaction.

Click to expand...

Then give him your ID .