Skip to main content

Criminal charges for disorderly conduct

Disorderly conduct, usually a misdemeanor charge, means disrupting the peace or public space through threatening, disruptive, lewd, or drunken behavior.

Kenneth Albert Vercammen | Jun 14, 2019

E560 1. Police can't detain occupants on noise complaint 2. Guilty finding vacated

1. Police can't detain occupants on noise complaint. State v Chisum Once the renter of the motel room lowered the volume of the music and the police declined to issue summonses, the police no longer had any reasonable suspicion that would justify the continued detention of the room's occupants. Once the noise was abated, the police no longer had an independent basis to detain the occupants, or a basis to run warrant checks on them. Such action was unlawful. And because the detention and warrant checks were unlawful, the subsequent pat down of Woodard was also improper. The judgment of the Appellate Division is therefore reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for the withdrawal of defendants' guilty pleas and further proceedings. (A-35-17/A-36-17; 079823/079835) 2. Guilty finding vacated based on state failure to provide evidence. State v. Brown The State's failure to produce nineteen discovery items until one week after the beginning of defendants' murder trial did violate defendants' due process rights under Brady. The Court reaches this conclusion, in part, because the trial court abused its discretion by excluding admissible impeachment and exculpatory evidence withheld by the State. Though there is no evidence or allegation that the State acted in bad faith or intentionally in failing to timely produce the discoverable material, the Court nonetheless vacates defendants' convictions and remands for a new trial because defendants were deprived of a fair trial. A-23-17/A-24-17; 079553/079556) 3. May Events May 13, 2019 Woodbridge Library; Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar at 7pm WILLS & ESTATE ADMINISTRATION-PROTECT YOUR FAMILY AND MAKE PLANNING EASY Free program open to the public, you do not need to be a Township resident to attend May 15, 2019 Municipal Court 101 NJSBA Annual Meeting? 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. - Central Ballroom A/B Wednesday Borgata Hotel 1 Borgata Way, Atlantic City, NJ 08401 Speakers: Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq., Past Chief Joshua H. Reinitz, Esq., Chair, Section Hon. Ashlie C. Gibbons J.M.C., Newark Municipal Court Hon. Harry D. Norton Jr., J.M.C., Pascack Joint Municipal Court Ronald P. Mondello, Esq.,? Gracia Montilus, Esq., GRM Legal Works, LLC Peter H. Lederman, Esq.,? Description: This is an introduction to municipal court for recently admitted attorneys or for anyone who is new to the practice area or wants a refresher. Experienced practitioners and judges will discuss important procedures, practical information and practice tips. 4. 2020 SuperLawyer The selection process for 2020 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars is underway. Attorneys canmake peer nominations by July 26, 2019. Help Super Lawyers create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys by nominating those excellent lawyers you have seen in action. When you nominate your peers, our research team will also review your own practice information. The nomination process is merely the first step in our research process, and nominations do not necessarily result in selection. After the creation of the candidate pool, the research department evaluates each candidate based upon 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Finally, candidates are evaluated by peers via the Blue Ribbon Panel. In April 2020, selected attorneys who have data verified will be published in: New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine New Jersey Monthly The attorney directory on? Questions? Visit? 5. Office space for rent PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 Excellent space for an Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountant, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals as a 2nd location or location to meet clients in Edison. The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building. 2 rooms office? office room # 6 approx 12.4 x 9.4? and front room appr 8 x 9 -office room # 5 plus use of reception room 16.6 x 7.2 and use of storage area in basement Previously used by Robert Blackman, late former Judge and Prosecutor of Edison? $500 per month [was $600] Call 732-816-4449 6. Charity Running Races 5/11/19 Step Up for the Arc 5k Sat 9:00am Oak Ridge Park in Clark.... 5/19/19 NJ Sharing Network 5k Long Branch 8:30 Sunday 05/19/19 President's Cup 5K, 4:00pm, Millburn, (s#051)(NBGP-700pts) USATF NJ OPEN MEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Sunday PRESIDENT'S CUP 5k, Millburn Additional resources provided by the author Please help us with a review on Google:,1 Recommend us on Facebook: Endorsing us on Linkedin: Help by writing a Review on AVVO: Help us with a review on Yelp: KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 website:

Kenneth Albert Vercammen | Jun 14, 2019

E559 1. Strip search permitted for indictable cases. State v Brown

1. Strip search permitted for indictable cases. State v Brown __ NJ Super. _ (App. Div. 2018) The panel affirms the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress five bricks of heroin seized from defendant's groin area pursuant to a strip search following defendant's arrest for indictable drug offenses. The panel addressed the strip search statute, N.J.S.A. 2A: 161A-1 to -10, which affords certain protections to persons who are arrested or detained for non-indictable offenses, and whether the Attorney General Guidelines for strip searches extend those protections to persons arrested or detained for crimes. The panel concludes that neither the legislative history nor the plain terms of the statute authorized the Attorney General to promulgate Guidelines to extend the statute's protections to persons detained or arrested for crimes. The panel further concludes that the strip search was justified here by probable cause and reasonable exigent circumstances, thereby satisfying the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. (17-06-1207) 2 OK for Rutgers University police officer to stop and arrest a defendant for DWI State v. Goines N. The state appealed the ruling of a municipal court judge that determined a Rutgers University Police Officer lacked jurisdiction to stop and arrest defendant for DUI. The officer allegedly observed defendant illegally cross a double-yellow line, after which she activated her lights and pulled over defendant in the city of New Brunswick. Defendant was transported to the police station for an Alcotest, which revealed a BAC of 0.14%. Before the municipal court, defendant moved to dismiss the DUI summons for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant cited a memorandum of understanding between Rutgers and New Brunswick that permitted Rutgers police officers to enforce motor vehicle laws on certain streets; because defendant's arrest did not occur on one of those streets, the municipal court judge granted defendant's motion. On appeal, the court reversed the ruling of the municipal court. The court noted that, in isolation, Title 18A appeared to preclude university police officers from enforcing traffic laws off-campus except at the request of municipal authorities. However, the court found that the Motor Vehicle Code also permitted "any law enforcement officer" to arrest someone for DUI. The court noted that this provision had been interpreted to permit municipal police officers to arrest drivers for DUI outside of those officers' territorial jurisdiction. The court interpreted the legislature's use of the term "any law enforcement officer" to mean that the legislature intended to expand the number of officials with authority to arrest drunk drivers. The court therefore held that it was consistent with the statute to give university police jurisdiction to enforce DUI laws. The court read this statute with Title 18A as preventing university police officers from being overtaxed, while not preventing those officers from stopping crimes occurring right before their eyes. Source: 3. NJ MVC was required here to have hearing to suspend for Maryland DWI Held v. New Jersey Motor Veh Plaintiff appealed defendant commission's final decision suspending plaintiff driver's license for 10 years, after plaintiff had pled guilty to DUI in Maryland. At the time of his Maryland conviction, plaintiff had three previous DUI convictions in New Jersey. Plaintiff opposed the suspension of his license, arguing that the length was excessive and challenging the equivalency of his Maryland conviction under New Jersey law. However, without holding an evidentiary hearing the MVC concluded that the Maryland statue for which plaintiff was convicted was substantially similar to the New Jersey statute for purposes of license suspension pursuant to the Interstate Driver License Compact. On appeal, plaintiff argued that his Maryland conviction was not substantially similar to a conviction under New Jersey law because the Maryland statute allowed for conviction with a lower level of impairment than required for conviction in New Jersey. The court agreed with plaintiff that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to establish the equivalency of his Maryland conviction. The court noted that while New Jersey permitted DUI conviction per se, based on a blood test, or by officer observation, Maryland permitted conviction "while under the influence of alcohol", "under the influence of alcohol per se", and "while impaired by alcohol". The court further noted that Maryland defined "impaired by alcohol" as a state less than intoxication where alcohol nonetheless affected one's coordination. Accordingly, the court concluded that further hearing was necessary to determine whether the "while impaired by alcohol" provision of the Maryland DUI statute was substantially similar to the observational provision of the New Jersey DUI statute. 4. April Free community events: April 15th Clara Barton Branch Library at 6:30 PM Monday Free 141 Hoover Avenue Edison, NJ 08837 April 20 Happy 420 day. May 2 ABA Estate Planning, Probate and Trust and Elder Law Joint Committee Meeting 10:00 am - 11:00 am at the Marriott Marquis, NYC at the 2019 ABA Section of Litigation & GPSolo CLE Conference in New York, NYC Thursday 1535 Broadway, New York, NY 10036 Round table discussion Free to all attendees. Ideas to be discussed: - BUILDING THE MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE PLANNING PRACTICE A Lawyer's Guide to Creating a Winning Estate Planning Practice Ethically Building Your Practice using free and low-cost online methods 1. Website specific 2. Blog 3. Facebook Law Office 4. LinkedIn- post articles, events 5. YouTube 6. Yelp for Business Owners 7. Avvo Legal rating 8. JD Supra 9. Justia Lawyer Directory: Plus May 2, 2019 7:00 AM - 7:40 AM Thursday Jog with Ken Vercammen & See Hudson River and Aircraft Carrier Intrepid 10am GPSolo Estate Planning, Probate and Trust and Elder Law Joint Committee Meeting 5. Charity Running Races Sat April 13, 2019 Colonia 5k Start St. John Vianney Church Wakefern /Shoprite co sponsor 4/27/19 Lake Como 5k Sat 10am Start Bar A Benefit BPOE Elks Camp Moore for Children with Special Needs & Lake Como Giving Tree 4/28/19 Tour de Franklin,Franklin Food Bank 62 mile & 40-mile bike 62 Mile Metric Century or 40 Mile now Starts at Franklin High School 5/4/19 Farmlands bike This family-friendly event has marked routes in a variety of distances, from a leisurely 15,25,35 mile jaunt to the ambitious 50 mile, metric (62.5 miles) and century (100 miles) Central Jersey Bike Club Middletown 5/5/19 Highland Park 5k Run in the Park 9am Sunday RVRR is volunteer group. Additional resources provided by the author Please help us with a review on Google:,1 - Recommend us on Facebook: -Endorsing us on Linkedin: -Help by writing a Review on AVVO: -Help us with a review on Yelp: Editorial Assistance provided by Anthony Rizzo. Mr. Rizzo is currently a senior at Rutgers University and is participating in Kenneth Vercammen's Spring Internship Program. Like Us On: Facebook KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 website:

Richard Quinton Hark | Apr 11, 2019

Disorderly Conduct and Pennsylvania Enforcement Environment

The Criminal Charges In 2015, Dunagan was arrested and charged with three Drug Act violations and one Disorderly Conduct offense. The charges stem from a police investigation that revealed Dunagan possessed a small amount of drugs and drug contraband. The Disorderly Conduct offense is based upon Dunagan’s behavior during the search warrant execution. Dunagan’s criminal defense attorney negotiated dismissal of the Drug Act offenses and a guilty plea to the Disorderly Conduct offense. This is a great legal tactic. A medical professional who pleads guilty to a Drug Act violation is subject to an automatic one year license suspension and forced PHMP/DMU enrollment. Dunagan’s plea avoided this result. Dunagan properly reported her arrest to the BPOA. Observing Drug Act offenses, a Nursing Board prosecutor filed an Order to Show seeking discipline Dunagan for her misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct guilty plea. Ordinarily, Disorderly Conduct – charged either as summary offense or a misdemeanor - is not a trigger for disciplinary action. However, the Board prosecutor, with the support of his supervisors as a policy decision, subversively sought to discipline Dunagan for her drug related criminal conduct – not really the Disorderly Conduct offense to which she plead guilty. This is outrageous. The Hearing Examiner's Decision Before the hearing examiner and Nursing Board, the prosecutor argues discipline should be based all facts of the criminal charges, not just the Disorderly Conduct behavior. This is more facts than those essential elements of the Disorderly Conduct offense. The prosecutor also maintains the facts giving rise to Dunagan’s guilty plea constitutes “a crime of moral turpitude” to which the Board may exercise its discretion and discipline Dunagan as it wishes. The Hearing Examiner, rejecting this position, rules Disorderly Conduct is not a crime of moral turpitude and dismisses the Order to Show Cause. The Board rejects the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Adjudication, finding Dunagan’s tumultuous behavior in the execution of a search warrant is a crime of moral turpitude. The Board suspends Dunagan’s license for six months. The Nursing Board Gets Reversed and Why Obviously the decision is based upon the drug offenses that were dismissed and to which the Board could NOT force Dungan into the DMU/PHMP or automatically suspend her license under the Drug Act and CHIRA. Dunagan appeals. The Commonwealth Court reverses the Nursing Board decision. The appellate court reviews much case law and facts and concludes Dunagan’s conduct resulting in a Disorderly Conduct guilty plea cannot and does not constitute moral turpitude. The Court states “A determination of whether a crime involves moral turpitude will be determined based solely upon the elements of the crime. The underlying facts or details of an individual criminal charge, indictment or conviction are not relevant to the issue of moral turpitude.” 22 Pa. Code § 237.9(b); see also Startzel v. Department of Education, 562 A.2d 1005, 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (“Determination of whether a crime involves moral turpitude turns on the elements of the crime, not on an independent examination of the details of the behavior underlying the crime.”). The Court rules a six month professional license suspension is 1) an abuse of discretion, 2) a guilty plea to a Disorderly Conduct offense is neither a crime of moral turpitude nor a basis to suspend or revoke a professional licensees license, and 3) citing her need to earn a living and work – that the case facts are not health related -- there is no justifiable necessity to protect the public from her conduct. What the Case is Really About This case reveals the extreme prosecutorial environment in which all Pennsylvania licensees now practice. Medical marijuana is the prime influencer of this case. Many Drug Act possessory offenses result in either original charges of Disorderly Conduct or evolve into a guilty plea to a Disorderly Conduct offense. A summary Disorderly Conduct offense is not a conviction under the Drug Act. As a result, Pennsylvania’s health related boards are not able to automatically suspend a license or commence disciplinary process predicated on a drug possessory offense. BPOA prosecutors tried to secure Commonwealth Court case law stating a summary offense, whether a crime of moral turpitude or not, is a valid discretionary basis to suspend and discipline a medical related board licensees license. The Commonwealth Court said no. More importantly, at the Board hearing the attorney did not properly protect the record. I have written that factual allegations contained in an Order to Show Cause can only be those related to the criminal convicted charges, not allegations that are dropped or dismissed. Facts related to dismissed, withdrawn, or not guilty charges are not relevant or admissible in any disciplinary prosecution. This attorney did not object to a whole set of irrelevant and inadmissible facts. Or the licensee simply testified about everything that happened on the date and time of her arrest. This placed those facts in the record for the Nursing Board to consider. It did consider the entire case facts, knew the case was about drugs, and suspended her license. Both the legal strategy and Board conduct was improper. Call me to discuss your case.

Jonathan Andrew Paul | Aug 8, 2018

Disorderly conduct Michigan - how your lawyer can help win your case by advocating for this outcome

As a former Michigan and New York City prosecutor, I worked on hundreds of disorderly conduct cases. In the grand scheme of things this type of charge was on the very bottom of criminal charges, but it is still a crime, and should be taken very seriously. When the question of "do you have a criminal record" is asked, the answer is YES just like it would be for more serious offenses. Disorderly conduct was a bit of a catch-all charge for criminal activity that did not fit into another category. It was also a type of charge that might be offered as a plea reduction down from a more serious charge. One common reduction would be a retail fraud charge, which is then converted into the amended charge of disorderly conduct - this would avoid the "crime of theft, fraud and dishonesty" In Michigan the term “disorderly person” covers a broad range of undesirable behavior, including: being able-bodied but failing to support your family being a prostitute or “loitering” (hanging out) in places of prostitution being a “Peeping Tom” engaging in an illegal business or profession (such as illegal gambling) loitering in places where illegal business is transacted being intoxicated in public and disturbing others or endangering people or property engaging in indecent or obscene conduct in public (such as nudity or sexual acts) being a vagrant loitering at police stations, jails, hospitals, or courthouses, soliciting work as an attorney or bail bond, and unnecessarily jostling or crowding others in public places. I would say 95 percent of the disorderly conduct charges that a prosecutor works with is the final charge - the jostling or crowding others in a public place, because this is a common reduction charge - you would not reduce retail fraud to a "peeing tom" disorderly conduct. ​Being a disorderly person is punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $500, or both. Funeral picketing is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. Subsequent convictions are punishable by up to four years in prison or a fine of up to $10,000, or both. ​As a defense lawyer it's rare to see a lone disorderly orderly conduct charge; it typically comes along with other charges, usually alcohol offenses. The above definition and categories are State of Michigan offenses, but this is a common charge on the city, township, village and municipal level. Disorderly conduct is a very valuable tool as a criminal lawyer, because it is the best type of reduction for a client from a more serious misdemeanor. And because it is a 90 day misdemeanor vs a one year or 93 day misdemeanor, it avoids many of the issues with the more serious offenses. I have had clients resolve their cases with a 90-day misdemeanor, and it does not show up on a background check. I have had prosecutors tell me the same, because fingerprints are not required for 90 day offenses, which helps prevent tracking/paper trail. As a criminal defense lawyer, I have petitioned courts to get fingerprints back along with arrest cards if my client was first prosecuted for a more serious offense then it is reduced to disorderly conduct. It is quite the challenge to convince a prosecutor to take a more serious charge and reduce it down to disorderly conduct because of the "less serious offense" issue - to think it may not come up in a background check discourages many prosecutors from offering. It's a bit of a holy grail outcome for many serious cases. I have even had DUI offenses in Michigan reduced down to disorderly conduct. It's not a common outcome, but my clients have earned that exceptional outcome by being proactive, and changing the perception of their case. If we can change the hearts and minds of the prosecutor and judge, anything is possible when charged with a crime.

Joshua B Goldberg | Mar 20, 2017

Pennsylvania Disorderly Conduct

Is swearing at a police officer Disorderly Conduct? Not if there is a single insult. For example, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant who said "F*@% you," to a police officer was not guilty of Disorderly Conduct. What to do to prepare your defense: Contact an attorney and try to obtain either video and/or audio evidence of the incident, or find eyewitnesses who can corroborate your version of the incident. Is yelling Disorderly Conduct? It depends. If the yelling is unreasonable, and disturbs the neighborhood, then it is Disorderly Conduct. However, one Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled that yelling does not constitute Disorderly Conduct if: 1) it is a single outburst, 2) it occurred before sleeping hours, and 3) no neighbors called the police to complain. What to do to prepare your defense: Contact an attorney and be prepared to provide pictures of the neighborhood, and try to obtain either video and/or audio evidence of the incident, or find eyewitnesses who can corroborate your version of the incident. Is arguing with police officers Disorderly Conduct? Some arguing with the police is ok. But the argument cannot incite bystanders, endanger the police, or interfere with the police officers' duties . . . and the level of noise cannot be unreasonable for the neighborhood. What to do to prepare your defense: Contact an attorney and be prepared to provide pictures of the neighborhood, and try to obtain either video and/or audio evidence of the incident, or find eyewitnesses who can corroborate your version of the incident. Is giving the middle finger Disorderly Conduct? No. Giving the middle finger to another person or police officer does not amount to Disorderly Conduct as long as it is not intended to start a fight. What to do to prepare your defense: Contact an attorney and try to obtain either video and/or audio evidence of the incident, or find eyewitnesses who can corroborate your version of the incident. Is public drinking Disorderly Conduct? Public drinking is not Disorderly Conduct. One Pennsylvania trial court has ruled that it is not Disorderly Conduct to drink a can of beer wrapped in a paper bag if the defendant does not also cause a public inconvenience. What to do to prepare your defense: Contact an attorney and be prepared to provide pictures of the neighborhood, and try to obtain either video and/or audio evidence of the incident, or find eyewitnesses who can corroborate your version of the incident. Conclusion This guide is intended to help Pennsylvania Defendants charged with Disorderly Conduct. Always remember: Never post anything on social media that could be used as evidence against you. This means photos, videos, and comments about the alleged incident. Disclaimer This guide is not intended as legal advice. It is a starting point for more thorough legal analysis and research. Readers are reminded that legal precedent can change; this guide is a synopsis of existing law.

Aaron Jeffrey Boria | Oct 19, 2016

Domestic Violence and Gun Rights Under Michigan Law

Firearm Possession Prohibition The law that controls is 18 USC 922(g)(9) and it states that a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime for domestic violence is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition. This band includes constructive possession, so if a person has been convicted of domestic violence and they have access and control over a firearm they would be in violation of the law. A violation of Firearm Possession Prohibition under 18 USC 922is ten years in prison and a fine of $250,000.00. To get around this, a person could plea under the spousal abuse act MCL 769.4a. This allows a person to comply with the law above because a judgment of guilt isn't entered. Combine that with 18 USC 921(33)(b)(ii), which says: A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. Under 769.4a no conviction ever enters. Disorderly Conduct - Disturbing the Peace I recently resolved a matter where the complanant made multiple complaints in multiple jurisdictions. What about the cases where the defendant has already burnt their 4a eligibility. One option is disorderly conduct, but it cannot be under josling as that will likely result in a violation of 18 USC 921. Other disorderly conduct charges may be a safer way to go federally, such as drunk and disorderly, but will result in a three year band on the CPL under Michigan law. The remedy, if you can get it, is disturbing the peace under MCL 750.170. This will allow the defendant to comply with both state and federal laws and keep the possession of their firearm. The information contained herein is Michigan specific. Attorneys should take the time to research all information on their own before making a decision as to how they advise their clients. Aaron J. Boria is a criminal defense lawyer located in Plymouth Michigan with a practice focused on a limited number of clients in the Detroit area. Boria can be reach at (734) 453-7806 or visit his website here