People v. Baker
984 N.E.2d 902, 20 N.Y.3d 354 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Isolated, brief statements using coarse language to criticize a police officer, unaccompanied by menacing conduct or other aggravating circumstances, are insufficient to establish the 'public harm' element required for a disorderly conduct charge under Penal Law § 240.20(3). The mens rea for this offense requires an intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, which is not satisfied by a purely personal dispute with an officer.
Facts:
- On a spring evening, Officer Johnson, parked in his marked police vehicle, noticed a woman videotaping his activities.
- Johnson ran the license plate of a car in the woman's driveway and found it was registered to a different vehicle.
- Defendant Trevis Baker approached the officer's open car window and inquired why Johnson had checked the license plate.
- Following a brief exchange, Baker began backing away from the police car into the middle of the street.
- While backing away, Baker swore at Officer Johnson and accused him of harassment.
- The entire verbal outburst lasted approximately 15 seconds.
- During the incident, about 10 civilian bystanders gathered on the sidewalk nearby.
Procedural Posture:
- Trevis Baker was arrested and subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance and disorderly conduct.
- In the County Court (trial court), Baker moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal arrest.
- The County Court denied the suppression motion, finding the police had probable cause to arrest Baker for disorderly conduct.
- Baker then pleaded guilty to the drug charge and an unrelated assault charge, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- Baker, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the County Court's judgment.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted Baker leave to appeal.
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 person's brief verbal outburst of profanity directed at a police officer, without any accompanying menacing conduct, establish probable cause for an arrest for disorderly conduct under a statute requiring an intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No. A brief verbal outburst directed at a police officer does not provide probable cause for a disorderly conduct arrest without evidence of the required mens rea of intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. The court reasoned that the core of a disorderly conduct charge is the 'public harm' element, which distinguishes it from purely personal disputes. To determine if this element is met, courts use a multi-factor contextual analysis, considering the time and place of the episode, the nature of the conduct, the number of people in the vicinity, and their reaction. Here, Baker's outburst was extremely brief (15 seconds), occurred during daylight hours, and was not accompanied by menacing conduct. The court distinguished this from cases like Tichenor, where a confrontation at a busy bar led to a brawl, finding that the gathering of curious onlookers here did not indicate a risk of public disorder. Furthermore, the fact that the statements were directed at a police officer, a party trained to de-escalate such situations and who was safely inside a vehicle, further undermined any inference of a genuine threat to public peace.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'public harm' requirement for disorderly conduct in New York, particularly in the context of citizen-police encounters. It establishes a high bar for arrests based solely on verbal criticism of police, reinforcing that profane or abusive language directed at an officer is not, by itself, a crime. The ruling effectively protects a sphere of expressive conduct that criticizes police action, grounding its reasoning in statutory interpretation to avoid a direct First Amendment holding. This precedent limits the discretionary power of police to arrest individuals for 'contempt of cop' and will likely lead to greater scrutiny of disorderly conduct charges that arise from brief, non-threatening verbal disputes.
