Source: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/disturbing-peace.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:40:46+00:00

Document:
California Penal Code (CPC) §415 – Disturbing The Peace – In California, the crime of Disturbing The Peace occurs under three circumstances: 1) whenever people fight (or someone challenges another person to fight) unlawfully in public; 2) whenever a person willfully disturbs another with loud and unreasonable noise; or, 3) whenever a person uses offensive words likely to provoke violence in public. As a result, Disturbing The Peace is broken into three different sections in the Code (CPC §415(1), which governs fighting; (2), which deals with noise; and (3), which addresses using offensive words in public).
CPC §415 is punishable as a Misdemeanor offense. If convicted of Disturbing The Peace, you could receive up to ninety days in a county jail, a four-hundred dollar fine, or both a fine and imprisonment. However, under the right circumstances, your Disturbing The Peace charge can be reduced to an Infraction.
What Does California Penal Code §§415(1)-(3) (Disturbing The Peace) Prohibit?
Use offensive words likely to produce a violent reaction in a public place.
In Public Place: You were in a public place when the challenge was made or the fight occurred.
Example: Defendant David is a passenger in Victim Vladimir's car. The men get into a heated argument. David is thinking about hitting Vladimir just as Vladimir pulls over the car, leaps from the driver's seat, and challenges David to fight on the side of a public road. A nearby police officer witnesses the exchange and arrests David for provoking a fight, charging him with violating §415(1). Should David be convicted?
Conclusion: David only thought about hitting Vladimir; he didn't do it. In fact, while he wanted to fight with Vladimir, David never even challenged him to a fight. (Had David fought he would've been in line for Battery charges as well.) This means that the prosecution can't prove an element of the Disturbing The Peace charge. Any time this happens, the law must side with the defendant in a criminal trial. David should not be convicted of violating CPC §415(1).
Disturbed Another/Loud And Unreasonable Noise: You made noise that could've resulted in violence OR noise which disturbed someone else's lawful activity.
Note: The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that you intended to provoke violence with noise.
Example: Defendant Damian moves into an apartment adjacent to Victim Vadim's. Damian loudly watches TV that night, preventing Vadim from sleeping. Vadim reports Damian for violating §415. When police arrive they learn that Damian is an eighty-year-old man whose isn't using his hearing aids because they're being repaired for a few days. Should Damian be convicted of Disturbing The Peace?
Conclusion: While Damian willfully listened to his music and television, and while it can be argued that the noise disturbed Vadim's lawful activity (sleeping), Damian didn't do it maliciously – that is, to hurt or to annoy Vadim. He's an elderly man who's hard of hearing and doesn't have his hearing aids, so he had no choice but to listen to his TV at a louder-than-usual volume. Since an element of the offense can't be proven, Damian shouldn't be convicted of violating CPC §415(2), and if he is, he should retain a skilled criminal defense lawyer who'll work to get the conviction expunged.
Public Place Or Building: When you used the words you were in a public place or building.
Note: The prosecutor doesn't have to prove you intended to provoke violence with the words you used but the jury must “consider all the circumstances in which the statement was made and the person to whom the statement was addressed” in deciding whether violence was likely to result. The prosecutor must prove that you didn't actually, reasonably believe the words you used would likely provoke someone. This is one of the ways in which public use of offensive words differs from crimes like Lewd Conduct In Public.
Example: Defendant Deborah and Victim Vanya don't get along well and haven't seen each other in months. One day they find themselves in the same line at a bakery open to the public, with Vanya standing right behind Deborah. Deborah decides to break the ice and asks Vanya how her daughter is doing. Unbeknownst to Deborah, Vanya's daughter was killed in a fire just a few days earlier. Vanya, enraged, lashes out at her old enemy and strikes Deborah across the face. The bakery owners call the police and report Deborah for Disturbing The Peace. Should Deborah be convicted of violating §415(3)?
Conclusion: Deborah uttered words that produced a violent reaction in Vanya. She also said these words inside a business open to the public. Considering the nature of the words (which might've otherwise seemed calculated to hurt Vanya), it's not unreasonable to assume they would provoke violence. However, since Deborah hadn't seen Vanya in months, she wouldn't know anything about Vanya's daughter's death. This means that Deborah wouldn't actually and reasonably believe the words she used would've provoked violence. Deborah, therefore, should not be convicted under CPC §415(3).
Disturbing The Peace can be punished with ninety (90) days in a county jail, a fine of up to $400 (four-hundred dollars), or both a fine and imprisonment. However, while §415 is normally a Misdemeanor, the charge can be lessened to an Infraction if: 1) the prosecutor files the case as an Infraction and you don't want it treated as a Misdemeanor; OR, 2) the court decides it should be tried as an Infraction.
Example: Defendant Don gets off a bus and sees a man, Victim Vernon, physically fighting on a public street with a woman who's much smaller than Vernon. Don, seeing the woman's distress and Vernon's aggression, decides to help her. Don fights Vernon using the same level of force as Vernon. Both stop fighting as a police car appears. An officer arrests Don for violating §415(1). Should Don be convicted?
Conclusion: Even though Don intentionally fought with Vernon in public, Don was lawfully defending a third party (the woman who was smaller than Vernon). Defense Of A Third Party excuses defendants from prosecution as long as they don't exceed the level of force they're met with and don't continue attacking after the opponent has stopped fighting. Therefore, since Don wasn't doing anything criminal like committing an Assault on Vernon, Don shouldn't be convicted of violating CPC §415(1).
Example: Defendant Davida organizes an anti-war rally at a public park bordering a tract of private houses. The City government grants her permission to stage the rally and gives her a permit. During the rally, Davida takes the microphone and goes on a long, malicious rant about the military being corrupt, infuriating Victim Viktor, an Army veteran who lives next to the park. Viktor reports Davida and has her arrested for violating CPC §415(3), claiming that she used offensive language in public likely to provoke him or someone else. Should Davida be convicted?
Conclusion: Whether Davida's statement would reasonably and actually be expected to provoke violence is debatable. The military can be a very sensitive topic for veterans like Viktor. It's actually possible that her words could provoke violence. But Davida asked for, and received, government permission to speak in a public forum on a matter of public concern. This is a First Amendment right. Her viewpoint is not for The City to censor. Therefore, Davida was engaged in lawful, constitutionally protected speech. She shouldn't be convicted of violating CPC §415(3) or a similar criminal charge.
Example: Defendant Dean is a bystander at a gay pride parade occurring in The City. He is quite tall. As a result, the parade participants can't see that a man standing behind Dean is shouting homophobic slurs and making violent threats. Eventually, having had enough of the abuse, a parade participant, Victim Velma, talks to a police officer. Meanwhile, the man hurling insults runs away. The officer mistakenly arrests Dean for Disturbing The Peace under Section (3). Should Dean be convicted of violating §415(3)?
Conclusion: A person should never be convicted of a crime she or he didn't commit. Yet this is precisely what could occur on the facts in this example, were the prosecution allowed to go to trial against Dean. The bystander responsible for the actual disturbance fled the scene just as Velma reported his speech. Dean was just at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Since the accusation against Dean is completely false, he shouldn't be convicted of violating CPC §415(3). This remains true even though the guilty man went as far as making Terrorist Threats against the parade-goers.
The California Penal Code contains several offenses related to Disturbing The Peace: Disturbing A Public Meeting Or Assembly (§403), Disturbing A Religious Meeting (§302), Creating Or Maintaining A Public Nuisance (§§372 and 373(a)), Resisting Arrest (§148(a)), Battery (§242), and Trespass (§602).
The crime of Disturbing A Public Meeting Or Assembly (CPC §403) occurs whenever anyone intentionally breaks up a public meeting or assembly that isn't unlawful. It's related to Disturbing The Peace because it's possible to do something that violates both Section 403 and 415 at the same time. But §403 differs from Disturbing A Religious Meeting (§302, discussed below). It also differs from California Elections Code Section 18340 - a statute dealing with disrupting “electors” (voters) in “public meetings” arranged to consider “public questions” - since Section 403 doesn't apply to political meetings.
Note: While your act must disturb a meeting, not your message, courts can consider whether you were asked to stop what you did when deciding whether you should've known you would disturb a meeting.
You can always find more information in the Criminal Charges Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.
You intentionally did something that violated the customs or rules governing a public meeting, you knew (or reasonably should've known) that your acts violated the customs or rules, and your acts substantially and unlawfully interfered with the meeting.
Example: Defendant Diane, a skateboarder, wants The City to build a skate park on a large, empty plot of land, but the Mayor is opposed to the idea and proposes a Town Hall meeting where City residents might provide their suggestions. Diane attends the meeting. While there, she stands up and yells, “F**k the City! We want a skate park!” Victim Victoria, sitting beside Diane, asks Diane to stop. Diane continues to yell. Victoria complains to a police officer and Diane is arrested for violating §403. Should Diane be convicted?
Conclusion: Diane intentionally shouted obscenities in the middle of a public meeting hosted by a public official concerning a matter of public concern. We can also assume that she knew that yelling would substantially disrupt the meeting, and that she intended on doing so, since Victoria asked her to stop yelling and Diane refused. The facts also include no rule or excuse that would permit Diane to interfere. However, since the meeting was held to get suggestions on public use of public land, the Town Hall was meant for “electors” (The City's voters). In this situation the prosecution should charge Diane under Elections Code §18340, a different law. Therefore, Diane should not be convicted under CPC §403.
In California, the crime of Disturbing A Religious Meeting (CPC §302) occurs when anyone intentionally disturbs a religious assembly at a tax-exempt place of worship through profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or unnecessary noise. The offense can occur inside the place where the meeting is held or near enough to disturb it. This makes it possible to disrupt a religious meeting and commit Disturbing The Peace at the same time.
Note: If you're convicted of this offense or Disrupting A Public Meeting Or Assembly more than once, you'll be sentenced to community service in addition to a fine and/or jail time. You might even have to fulfill your community service in the same place where the religious meeting you disrupted was held.
If you or someone you know is accused of Disturbing A Religious Meeting, you can always find more information in the Criminal Charges section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Remember, your call will go always directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.
You intentionally disturbed people who met for religious worship at a tax-exempt place by profanity, indecent behavior, or unnecessary noise. You also either disturbed them where the meeting was held or near enough to disturb the meeting.
Example: Defendant Dickie is a prankster. Lately his favorite target has been the non-profit church at the end of his street. One Sunday, Dickie parks his car outside the open front doors of the church during a service and plays George Carlin's “The Seven Words You Can't Say On Television” monologue at volume high enough for the whole congregation to hear it. Victim Vicar, who's had enough of these pranks, reports Dickie for Disturbing A Religious Meeting. Should Dickie be convicted of the offense?
Conclusion: The elements of the offense are present. Dickie intentionally parked a car outside a non-profit (tax-exempt) church during a Sunday service. He then played a monologue focused on words considered obscene loudly enough for the Vicar (and the rest of the church) to hear the recording during the meeting. Then Vicar complained to the police. Thus Dickie should be convicted of violating §302.
Creating Or Maintaining A Public Nuisance occurs in California when a person “maintains, permits or allows a public nuisance to exist [on his or her premises] [ ] after reasonable notice in writing” to “remove, discontinue or abate” the nuisance and doesn't do it. Loud noise can be punished under the Public Nuisance laws, making them similar to the Disturbing The Peace laws.
Note: Under §373(a), you can violate the law every day you allow a nuisance to remain on property after you've been instructed to remove it, not just once.
You can always find more information in the Criminal Charges Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you need help with a Public Nuisance charge, feel free to contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. Guaranteed.
You did something to create a nuisance, or didn't do something to remove a nuisance condition you created, on your property after getting written notice from a health officer or attorney telling you to remove or stop the nuisance.
Example: Defendant Danica decides to take up pottery making. She buys a very large kiln (a type of oven with a smokestack used for baking pottery) and leaves it on her front lawn. Over the next few days she bakes several items, causing thick, black smoke to fill the skies over The City. Soon The City's Health Department receives a complaint from Victim Valerie, a City resident who's hit with kiln smoke as she walks down a public street. The Health Department sends an agent in-person to Danica's house. The agent tells Danica to remove the kiln. Danica doesn't. The Health Department agent has Danica arrested the next week for Creating A Public Nuisance. Should Danica be convicted of violating §373(a)?
Conclusion: While Danica did everything necessary to violate CPC §373(a) – she created an unhealthful condition on her property affecting the public and was instructed to remove it by a health officer – the agent from the Health Department never gave her written notice of The City's instructions. Therefore, though there may be little more than a technical problem, Danica shouldn't be convicted under §373(a).
In California, Resisting Arrest (CPC §148(a)) occurs when anyone delays or tries to stop law enforcement officers from performing duties of their employment. If you resist arrest in a way that also disturbs the peace, you might be charged under §148(a) and §415.
Note: Unlawful arrests and arrests involving excessive force aren't part of an officer's duty. Also, the jury must agree on exactly what you did to resist arrest. “Going limp” and making the officer drag you can be enough.
If you've been charged with Resisting Arrest, you can always find more information in the Resisting An Officer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Just contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County for help. We guarantee that your call will go directly to a lawyer.
A peace officer was lawfully performing (or attempting to perform) duties when you willfully resisted, obstructed, or delayed the performance. When you acted, you knew, or reasonably should've known, that a peace officer was performing duties.
Example: Defendant Dion's car is stopped by a uniformed law enforcement officer, Victim Vaughn, for suspected drunk driving. Vaughn asks Dion to step out for the car, which is standard procedure in their jurisdiction, but Dion refuses. Vaughn warns Dion that what Dion is doing could be charged as Resisting Arrest and tells Dion to step out immediately. Dion will not move. Vaughn drags Dion from the car, puts Dion in the back of Vaughn's cruiser, and charges Dion with violating §148(a). Should Dion be convicted?
Conclusion: Vaughn stopped Dion as part of his duty as a law enforcement officer, believing that Dion was driving while under the influence of alcohol. Asking Dion to get out of the car was also part of his duty. But Dion refused a direct order to get out of the car knowing that Vaughn was trying to perform his duties as an officer. Then he made Vaughn drag him away. Since Dion knew that Vaughn was a peace officer (based on Vaughn's vehicle and uniform), Dion should be convicted of violating CPC §148(a).
The crime of Battery (CPC §242) occurs in California whenever a person intentionally uses violence against another person. This is also known as “Simple Battery.” Battery is a Misdemeanor related to Disturbing The Peace because fighting in public can result in charges of Disturbing The Peace and Battery, with the right facts.
Note: Slightly touching someone can be a Battery. Even making contact with another person through clothing is enough. But the touching doesn't have to cause injury and can be done simply by making an object (or another person) touch the victim.
If you've been accused of Battery, you can find more information in the Battery section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Just contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer.
You willfully touched another person in a harmful or offensive manner and you didn't act in self-defense, defense of someone else, or to discipline a child.
Example: Defendant Daniel goes to the beach with a friend and plays Frisbee beside a family sitting atop a blanket. After passing the Frisbee back and forth a few times, Daniel tosses it towards his friend but a breeze grabs hold of the disc and turns it towards the family. The Frisbee hits five-year-old Victim Vin, who bursts out crying. Vin's parents see this and contact a police officer. Daniel is arrested for Battery. Should Daniel be convicted of violating CPC §242?
Conclusion: Although Daniel didn't touch Vin directly, he touched Vin with the Frisbee in a way that was harmful, as indicated by Vin's crying after he was struck. He also had no right to do it, since Daniel was not Vin's parent and he wasn't trying to defend himself or someone else when he struck Vin. But Daniel didn't willfully strike Vin with the Frisbee; a gust of wind seized it and carried it towards Vin. Therefore, since there's an element the prosecution can't prove, Daniel should be acquitted of violating CPC §242.
Trespass (CPC §602) occurs when a building or property is entered without the owner's permission. While it is usually punished as a Misdemeanor, Trespass can be joined with an offense like Assault to aggravate the sentence in a criminal trial, if the facts are right.
Note: Trespass can be used by defendants to plead guilty to a lesser charge when a prosecutor is entertaining charges of Indecent Exposure (CPC §314) inside a house or building, or Burglary (CPC §459).
You can always find more information on Trespass in the Trespassing Lawyer Section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Remember, your call to the Kann Defense Group will always go directly to a lawyer – guaranteed.
You willfully entered land or a building belonging to someone else without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person who had lawful possession of the property. You also occupied the land or building continuously until you were removed.
Example: Defendant Dale goes to a public museum and takes a tour. Along the way he harasses Victim Vidor, one of the museum's tour guides, who then asks Dale to leave. But Dale refuses and continues insulting Vidor and the guests. Vidor calls the police, who arrive to find Dale inside the museum and arrest him for violating §602. Should Dale be convicted of Trespass?
Conclusion: A person can be asked to leave a public space if his or her behavior isn't acceptable under the circumstances. (See “Disturbing A Public Meeting Or Assembly,” above, for more information.) Dale entered a public museum and overstepped his welcome through using loud insults. He was asked to leave. But he insisted on remaining without the consent of Vidor (who would be a lawful agent of the museum, since Vidor was one of the museum's own tour guides). When the police arrived to find Dale still on the premises, Dale completed his Trespass. He should be convicted of violating CPC §602.
What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Disturbing The Peace?
The State of California treats the quiet enjoyment of property and public peace as important interests. If you're charged with Disturbing The Peace, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.
The attorneys at the Kann California Defense Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities. If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Disturbing The Peace, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.
 There is an additional Sub-part of CPC §415 that deals specifically with fighting on “the grounds of any school, community college, university, or state university.” It calls for the same basic penalties. See CPC §415.5.
 “‘Unlawful' and ‘illegal' are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, […] [‘unlawful'] denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i.e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy.” See definition of “Unlawful” at The Law Dictionary.org.
 See CEC §18340 (defining the offense of preventing electors from meeting).
 “The plain language of the statute and its legislative history demonstrate that § 403 does not cover political meetings[.]” See CPR For Skid Row v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir., No. 12-55289) (2015).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2681 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 Facts inspired by Cohen v. California (403 U.S. 15) (1971).
 Diane might be charged under CPC §415(3) on these facts.
 See CPC §302(a) (defining the crime of Disturbing A Religious Meeting).
 Dickie could also be convicted of violating CPC §415(2) on these facts.
 See CPC §370 (defining public nuisance).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2656 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 Dion could still be convicted of Driving Under The Influence (CVC §23152) as well.
 See CPC §243(a) (establishing basic penalty for Battery).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 960 (CALCRIM) (2017).
 See CPC §602 (detailing Trespass fines and circumstances for imposing fines).
 See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2931 (CALCRIM) (2017) (defining “Agent”).
 On these facts, Dale could also be convicted of Disturbing A Public Meeting Or Assembly (§403) and Disturbing The Peace (§415(3)).

References: §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §415
 §403
 §403
 §403
 §18340
 §403
 §302
 §302
 §373
 §373
 §373
 §373
 §148
 §148
 §415
 §148
 §148
 §242
 §242
 §242
 §602
 §314
 §459
 §602
 §602
 §415
 §415
 §18340
 § 403
 v. 
 v. 
 §415
 §302
 §415
 §370
 §23152
 §243
 §602