NCJ Number
167397
Journal
Law Enforcement Quarterly Dated: (August-October 1996) Pages: 5-8,43-45
Date Published
1996
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article explains the parameters for enforcing California law that pertains to "disturbing the peace."
Abstract
California's "disturbing the peace" statute, under Penal Code section 415, is divided into three distinct crimes. They are unlawfully fighting or challenging another to fight in a public place, maliciously and willfully disturbing another person by loud and unreasonable noise, and using offensive words in a public place that are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. Since "fighting and challenging to fight" is clear in its meaning, there is little if any case law to discuss, so most of this article focuses on the latter two offenses. It discusses the legal definition of "loud and unreasonable" noise to refer to loud shouting and cheering where there is a clear and present danger of its giving rise to immediate violence, or where such loud shouting and cheering is not intended as a means of communication to inform or persuade but is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors. Participating in mass demonstrations in city streets that involves picketing and noisy singing and chanting that disturbs some peaceful enjoyment of property is at least presumptively protected under the First Amendment. Such loud and boisterous conduct is criminal only when it comes within one or both of the two categories specified, i.e., a clear and present danger of imminent violence or where the demonstrator's real intent is to disrupt someone else's lawful activities. The third category of "disturbing the peace" statute involves the use of offensive words in a public place that are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction, sometimes referred to as "fighting words." These are words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The article discusses the circumstances under which individual arrests for disturbing the peace, despite its constitutional restrictions, is still preferable to having to make mass arrests after the disturbance has degenerated into an unlawful assembly, rout (when two or more people assembled and acting together make any attempt or advance toward the commission of an act which would be a riot if actually committed), or riot. The application of the law is discussed regarding disturbing a meeting, lynching, paramilitary organizations, picketers, and curfews. 77 notes