Opinion ID: 2619530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conduct of the Defendants.

Text: The State contends that the responses to the police requests constituted the disorderly language and conduct from which a breach of the peace might have followed as the direct result. In applying the foregoing tests to the evidence as discussed in the court's opinion and supplemented herein, a reasonable trier of fact would certainly have had a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendants. Since it is conceded by the State that the activities engaged in by the defendants were lawful at the time the request was made to remove the effigies, the request by the officer can be viewed only as one which had no force of law to compel compliance. [4] It can be seen as no more than an attempt to exercise autocratic power by fiat. To call the subsequent arrests due process of law would be a diaphanous euphemism. Laws    are to be made by representatives chosen to make laws for the future, not by police officers whose duty is to enforce laws already enacted and to make arrests only for conduct already made criminal.    To let a policeman's command become equivalent to a criminal statute comes dangerously near making our government one of men rather than of law. Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 89 S.Ct. 946, 951, 22 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969). (Concurring Opinion of Black, J.). Even though the police requests had no legal force behind them, a negative response could, conceivably, have constituted disorderly conduct if the response had been made with the intent or likelihood that a breach of the peace would result from it. However, there is no evidence showing such intent and insufficient evidence to show the likelihood in this case. The refusal to obey a police order per se cannot constitute disorderly conduct. People v. Smith, 19 N.Y.2d 212, 278 N.Y.S.2d 832, 835, 225 N.E.2d 531, 533 (1967). That the defendants earnestly and vigorously protested their impending incarceration is not to be doubted. But these protests were nothing more than many spirited innocent persons would naturally offer, and they cannot be made to justify an illegal arrest. There was no threatening, abusive or obscene language used by the defendants. There were only queries and protests against the police action. HAWKINS, Circuit Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The ugly acts of the defendants that occurred on the campus of the University of Hawaii prior to the arrival of the President of the United States would incite any red-blooded American to violence. To prevent this from happening, the police officer made the arrests that are now being challenged. In my opinion, questions of fact were posed for the jury's determination. I would affirm the jury's verdict of guilty as charged.