Criminal Law: Fighting Words and Breach of Peace

Disorderly Conduct and Language

• To make an arrest for violating F.S.§877.03 based on language, an officer must observe the suspect using "fighting words" that inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
• "Fighting words" include words known to be false, reporting some physical hazard, and creating a clear and present danger of bodily harm to others (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded building).

Cases and Rulings

• In State v. Saunders (1976), the court ruled that an officer can arrest a suspect based on language that tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
• In Smith v. State (2007), the court ruled that using profanity and cursing at a bank and its assistant manager was not sufficient to support an arrest for disorderly conduct, as there was no evidence of inciting an immediate breach of the peace.
• In Barry v. State (2006), the court ruled that even if language is directed at a law enforcement officer, it is not sufficient to support an arrest for disorderly conduct without evidence of inciting an immediate breach of the peace.

Key Factors

• For a conviction of disorderly conduct, there must be evidence that the crowd is actually responding to the defendant's words in some way that threatens to breach the peace.
• Mere observation or curiosity by onlookers is insufficient to support a conviction.
• Verbal conduct alone, without physical action, may not be sufficient to support a conviction for disorderly conduct.

Legal Standards for Arrest under F.S. §877.03

• Officers can arrest individuals based solely on verbal communication, specifically "fighting words."
• "Fighting words" are defined as those that inherently provoke injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace.
• The context of the words plays a crucial role; they must create a clear and present danger of harm to others.
• False statements about physical hazards can lead to arrest if they pose a significant risk to others' safety.
• The concept emphasizes the impact of language over physical actions in certain legal contexts.

Disorderly Conduct and Legal Standards

• Defendant repeatedly instructed an officer to mind her "own f ing business" during an altercation.
• This confrontation escalated as the defendant approached the officer, shouting obscenities and gesturing aggressively.
• Traffic around an elementary school slowed to observe the scene, but no motorist physically intervened or acted in response to the defendant's behavior.
• The Court determined that mere observation by bystanders does not constitute sufficient grounds for a conviction of disorderly conduct.

Key Legal Precedents

• Miller v. State: Conviction overturned due to aggressive speech directed at an officer, emphasizing that conduct must be more than mere words.
• L.A.T. v. State: Shouting about police treatment in a public space was not enough for a disorderly conduct conviction; the conduct was solely verbal.
• F.S. §877.03: To charge under this statute, evidence must show "fighting words" or false statements likely to incite immediate physical conflict or danger.

Contextual Considerations

• Smith v. State: Defendant's profanity at a bank did not warrant arrest; bystanders showed either curiosity or annoyance rather than a threat to peace.
• Barry v. State: Even directed insults at law enforcement do not alone satisfy requirements for disorderly conduct charges.
• Words must demonstrably cause others to react in ways that threaten the peace, not just evoke passive observation or mild disturbance.

Essential Elements of a Conviction

• Language must be aggressive enough to inflict injury or incite imminent violence.
• For disorderly conduct to be substantiated, there's a need for evidence showing bystander involvement or reactions indicating a breach of the peace.
• Verbal confrontations, when unaccompanied by physical actions, often lack the legal grounds for prosecution under disorderly conduct statutes.