Ned Michie
​Attorney at law

Charged with
​
Disorderly Conduct?

Free Consultation and Reasonable Rates
Office in Charlottesville, Virginia
​
​​(434) 296-1198

Call

Personal Attention to Every Case

​Representing Central Virginia Clients 
​for Over 30 Years

Experience Matters

I've been honored to be chosen by multiple lawyers and law professors for
​legal representation of themselves or their family members on criminal and traffic cases. 
​Let me put my experience to work for you.

Disorderly Conduct

The outcome of all criminal cases
can be greatly affected by:

Whether You Decide to Hire an Attorney
&
20 COMMON ISSUES and DECISIONS 
(follow the link to learn more)

Va Code § 18.2-415. Disorderly conduct in public places.  The law states as follows:
(click link to ensure latest version)

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

A. In any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed; or

B. Willfully or being intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts any funeral, memorial service, or meeting of the governing body of any political subdivision of this Commonwealth or a division or agency thereof, or of any school, literary society or place of religious worship, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the funeral, memorial service, or meeting or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed; or

C. Willfully or while intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts the operation of any school or any activity conducted or sponsored by any school, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the operation or activity or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed.

However, the conduct prohibited under subdivision A, B or C of this section shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words or to include conduct otherwise made punishable under this title.
The person in charge of any such building, place, conveyance, meeting, operation or activity may eject therefrom any person who violates any provision of this section, with the aid, if necessary, of any persons who may be called upon for such purpose.

The governing bodies of counties, cities and towns are authorized to adopt ordinances prohibiting and punishing the acts and conduct prohibited by this section, provided that the punishment fixed therefor shall not exceed that prescribed for a Class 1 misdemeanor. A person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Code 1950, §§ 18.1-239, 18.1-240, 18.1-253.1 through 18.1-253.3; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 639; 1969, Ex. Sess., c. 2; 1970, c. 374; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1976, c. 244; 1990, c. 627; 2006, c. 250."

​

Some Interpretation of the Statute by the Courts

In Battle v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 135, 139, 647 S.E.2d 499, ___ (2007) the Court of Appeals stated:

"The essential elements of a disorderly conduct charge include the specified mens rea ('intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof') and a concomitant actus reus (public conduct tending to cause acts of violence under subsection A, behavior disrupting certain formal public gatherings under subsection B, and behavior disrupting school functions under subsection C)."

In another case, the Court of Appeals pointed out:

"The requirement that the defendant's actions or behavior, in order to constitute disorderly conduct, must have 'a direct tendency to cause acts of violence' is dictated by concern for First Amendment free speech protections:

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. 'Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.' City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461, 107 S. Ct. 2502, 96 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1987) (quoting Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S. Ct. 894, 93 L. Ed. 1131 (1949))."

Ford v. City of Newport News, 23 Va. App. 137, 143, 474 S.E.2d 848, ___ (1996)