99-3204 State v. Schwebke

Listen to this article

Although defendant argued that the statute requires a “public disturbance,” not merely personal distress, the plain language of the statute requires only a “disturbance” and does not require the conduct necessarily to reach the public in some capacity.

“[S]imply because the cases before us have all involved disturbances on a public level does not mean that the statute cannot be applied in instances where the disturbance is private in nature. Indeed, as the State points out, there have been some cases involving domestic disputes where the defendants were convicted under the statute, even though the conduct apparently did not involve a threat to disturb the public at large. …

“Nevertheless, we conclude that the disorderly conduct statute requires, at a minimum, that, when the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance that is private or personal in nature, there must exist the real possibility that this disturbance will spill over and cause a threat to the surrounding community as well. In this respect, the state’s interest in maintaining peace and order in the community is not limited only to threats of riots or interference with traffic upon public streets. Certainly, as in domestic disputes, even though the disturbance may only occur on a private level, such conduct affects the overall safety and order in the community, and the state has an interest in regulating this conduct as well.”

Judgment affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J., dissenting. “I agree with the defendant that the language of the statute, its legislative history, and the case law support the notion that disorderly conduct requires a threat to public order and does not apply to the kind of private harassment-type conduct involved in the present case. The majority opinion’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. sec. 947.01 encompasses far too much conduct that the legislature could not have intended to include in the statute.”

Court of Appeals, Bablitch, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Keith A. Findley, Madison

For Respondent: Jeffrey J. Kassel, James E. Doyle, Madison