holding the language of a disorderly conduct statute did not "invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement" because the statute's "reasonableness standard provide[d] a constraining and intelligible enforcement guideline for police and prosecutors"
How later courts described this case
- holding the language of a disorderly conduct statute did not "invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement" because the statute's "reasonableness standard provide[d] a constraining and intelligible enforcement guideline for police and prosecutors"
- holding that the defendant’s overall complaint which included her statement that she had not done anything after being threatened with arrest constituted political speech
- holding that defendant’s overall complaint, which included her statement that she had not done anything after being threatened with arrest, constituted political speech
- concluding that the state imposes a material burden when it treats as an abuse political speech which does not harm any particular individual (“public nuisance”)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by JD v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341 (2007)
Because we find that J.D.'s abusive speech is not analogous to the relatively harmless speech in Price, and that her loud over-talking of the officer was not constitutionally-protected speech, we reject the claim of insufficient evidence.
The opinion
GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I believe the Court of Appeals opinion reported at 600 N.E.2d 103 is correct in every respect.
I do not think transfer of this case and reversal of the trial court is justified.
DICKSON, J., concurs.