Commonwealth v. Maerz
2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2272, 879 A.2d 1267, 2005 Pa. Super. 267 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the offense of disorderly conduct based on making 'unreasonable noise,' the determination of what constitutes unreasonable noise must be based solely on the volume of the speech and its impact on public peace, not on the content, profanity, or offensive nature of the language used.
Facts:
- Lieselotte Maerz, 70 years old, believed her neighbor, Jay Skowronek, was flashing a light on her home.
- At 9:45 p.m. on a December night, Skowronek was walking his dog and accidentally shone his flashlight on Maerz's home.
- Maerz came out onto her porch and shouted “[y]ou goddamn, motherfucking son of a bitch, what the hell are you doing, get that light off my house” at Skowronek.
- Maerz immediately retreated into her home after her outburst.
- Maerz subsequently phoned the police to complain that Skowronek was drunk and shining a light on her house.
- The responding police officer interviewed both Maerz and Skowronek separately, crediting Skowronek’s account that the flashlight incident was accidental.
Procedural Posture:
- Lieselotte Maerz was cited for summary disorderly conduct – unreasonable noise, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5503(a)(2).
- Maerz pled not guilty to the citation but was found guilty by the district justice, who fined her $50 and imposed court costs of $117.
- Maerz appealed, and a trial de novo in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County resulted in a guilty verdict, reinstating the fines and costs.
- Maerz appealed this judgment of sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (Maerz is the appellant).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a brief, loud, and profane verbal outburst directed at a neighbor across the street, which causes irritation to that neighbor but does not jeopardize public peace or exceed community noise tolerances, constitute 'unreasonable noise' under Pennsylvania's disorderly conduct statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevens, J.
No, a brief, loud, and profane vocal outburst directed at a neighbor that causes irritation but does not jeopardize the public peace or exceed community noise tolerance does not constitute 'unreasonable noise' under the disorderly conduct statute. The court vacated Maerz's conviction, emphasizing that the offense of disorderly conduct is intended to preserve public peace, not to serve as a 'catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people' or as a 'dragnet for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community.' The determination of 'unreasonable noise' must focus solely on the volume of speech, not its content, particularly in the 'actus reus' inquiry. While the content of Maerz’s speech was offensive and annoying to the Skowroneks, her single sentence outburst was brief, occurred prior to ordinary sleeping hours, prompted no civil unrest or other neighbor intervention, and lacked evidence that its volume was inconsistent with neighborhood tolerance levels. The court found that Maerz’s actions, including immediately retreating and calling the police, belied an intent to upset the public peace. The trial court erroneously factored the content of Maerz’s speech (profanities) into its determination of whether the noise was 'unreasonable,' blurring the distinction between subsections of the disorderly conduct statute.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between speech content and volume in Pennsylvania's disorderly conduct statute, particularly concerning 'unreasonable noise.' It limits the application of this specific subsection, ensuring that individuals are not penalized simply for using offensive language, but rather for creating actual public disturbances through excessive volume that exceeds community standards. The decision reinforces the First Amendment implications inherent in speech-related offenses, preventing the statute from being used to punish speech based on its content rather than its disruptive impact. Future cases must strictly adhere to this two-step analysis, focusing on the public peace and objective noise levels, rather than subjective annoyance caused by offensive words.
