|
Part 2/2
3. The Disorderly Conduct statute was not meant to be used so broadly as to apply in this case
The Superior court has made it abundantly clear that “the disorderly conduct statute must not be used as a catchall or dragnet for the prosecution of conduct that is uncivil, annoying, or irritating.”(Commonwealth v. Gilbert, Commonwealth v. Maerz).
In addressing the purpose of the Disorderly Conduct statute the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: “the cardinal feature of disorderly conduct is public unruliness which can or does lead to tumult and disorder.”
CONCLUSION: the disorderly conduct statute was used as a dragnet in this case to sanction conduct that is in compliance with all the laws of Pennsylvania. The interests of public order and decency were not endangered at all by my behavior, they were honored. There was no disturbance caused nor any threat to anyone’s welfare, and this is reflected by the legislatures endorsement of the level of noise emitted by my vehicle. The conclusion that the disorderly conduct statute is improper under these circumstances is supported by the complete absence of case law upholding such a citation for vehicle noise emissions.
SUMMARY
(1) because this conduct was intended by the legislature to be governed by the Vehicle Code the citation for disorderly conduct should be quashed
(2) even if the disorderly conduct statute were applicable in this case, the Commonwealth cannot convict me for such an offense as a matter of law because the “unreasonable noise” standard was not satisfied
|