A Ramsey County conviction of two counts of disorderly conduct was overturned by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in State of Minnesota vs. Todd Charles Sharkey, an unpublished opinion filed June 4, 2012.
Sharkey was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct after it was alleged that he disturbed a local city council meeting by objecting loudly to comments on the proceedings. At the direction of the presiding mayor, police removed Sharkey from the meeting. The matter was tried to the district court judge, without a jury, and the district court found Sharkey guilty on the grounds that he had “disturbed the meeting in a noisy and boisterous fashion, creating alarm.” Sharkey appealed the conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on the basis, among other things, that the majority of his conduct was protected by the First Amendment – freedom of speech, and the unprotected conduct was not enough to uphold a finding of guilt on the disorderly conduct charges.
Freedom of Speech is not absolute. Freedom of Speech protections do not extend to language or conduct that is offensive, obscene or would provoke a fight. Sharkey’s behavior at the city council meeting was characterized as “agitated” and it was asserted that he spoke with a “raised voice” during the citizen comment portion of the council meeting. During this portion, Sharkey also interrupted the mayor, and told the mayor that he did not want to listen to him. The mayor then asked police to remove Sharkey from the meeting. Sharkey refused to leave, and shouted several times that they would have to arrest him. He also clung to the podium, and a deputy had to pry his fingers off of the podium to remove him.
The Court of Appeals found that Sharkey’s speech and conduct during the citizen comment portion of the council meeting was protected because “he believed he was being denied an opportunity to speak in a public forum[.]” Therefore, Sharkey’s speech and conduct do not provide a basis for the disorderly conduct convictions. Because the loud and boisterous comments and conduct were linked to the protected right of freedom of speech, they are also protected. However, creating alarm in witnesses is not protected conduct, but this unprotected conduct was not enough for the Court of Appeals to uphold the disorderly conduct convictions because there was insufficient evidence of it as it was only a generalized finding by the district court.
Disorderly conduct charges can be a bar to future employment, therefore, if you are facing or under investigation for disorderly conduct, it is important to speak with a knowledgeable attorney right away. Contact Frame Law, LLC at (651) 361-9830.