Court Opinion

ID: 9647904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:54:44.852143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:54.539445
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority characterizes the Appellee’s response to the police officer’s instruction as the type of spark the statute so plainly seeks to extinguish before it becomes a flame. While a report of a stabbing in the early morning hours outside a tavern with a large crowd may offer a potential volatile situation, the record is devoid of any evidence that the incident presented any danger to bystanders, passersby or the arriving police officers. In fact, there is no evidence that the crowd was even aware of the confrontation between the police officer and Appellee. Therefore, it is mere' speculation that Appellee’s words and actions recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Instead, the majority would use this statute as the means to prohibit Appellee’s use of language *295which was not even directed to the police officer personally. I would not penalize the Appellee for his apparent lack of vocabulary.
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.