of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Disorderly conduct, as defined by Minnesota Statute § 609.72, is a common misdemeanor charge often arising from situations involving public disturbances, fights, loud arguments, or offensive behavior. It’s a broad statute intended to address conduct that disrupts public order and peace. The law prohibits engaging in specific actions, such as brawling or using offensive language or behavior, when the person knows or should reasonably know that their actions will, or will tend to, alarm, anger, or disturb others, or provoke an assault or breach of the peace. This offense can occur in public or private places, including school buses, highlighting its wide applicability to various disruptive scenarios encountered in daily life.
Understanding a disorderly conduct charge requires looking closely at the specific actions alleged and the context in which they occurred. The core of the offense lies not just in the conduct itself, but in the knowledge (or reasonable grounds to know) of its likely effect on others – causing alarm, anger, disturbance, or provoking violence. It’s important to note that one part of the statute, related to disturbing lawful assemblies, has been found unconstitutional. Therefore, current prosecutions typically focus on brawling/fighting or engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or language that tends to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment. The statute also includes enhanced penalties if the disorderly conduct is committed by a caregiver against a vulnerable adult.
Minnesota law defines the crime of Disorderly Conduct under section 609.72 of the state statutes. This law outlines specific behaviors that constitute this misdemeanor offense when performed with knowledge, or reasonable grounds to know, that they will likely disturb others or provoke a breach of the peace. It also provides enhanced penalties for caregivers committing disorderly conduct against vulnerable adults.
Here is the text of the relevant subdivisions of the statute:
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime.
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or (See Note Below)
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person’s disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.
(NOTE: In State v. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166 (Minn 2017), subdivision 1, clause (2), concerning disturbing a lawful assembly, was held unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is substantially overbroad and is therefore unenforceable.)
Subd. 3. Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct.
A caregiver, as defined in section 609.232, who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in section 609.232, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
To secure a conviction for Disorderly Conduct under Minnesota Statute § 609.72, subdivision 1, the prosecution must prove several key elements beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements establish that the defendant engaged in prohibited conduct with the requisite knowledge about its likely impact on others. Because clause (2) regarding disturbing lawful assemblies has been found unconstitutional, prosecutions typically proceed under clause (1) or (3). Failure to prove any essential element for the specific clause charged means the defendant cannot be lawfully convicted. Understanding these components is vital for analyzing the charge and building a defense.
A conviction for Disorderly Conduct in Minnesota results in a criminal record and carries potential penalties determined by the specific circumstances of the offense. While generally classified as a misdemeanor, the penalties can be enhanced if the offense is committed by a caregiver against a vulnerable adult. Understanding the potential sentencing outcomes is important for anyone facing this charge.
For most violations of Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1, the offense is classified as a misdemeanor.
Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 3 provides enhanced penalties if a “caregiver” commits disorderly conduct against a “vulnerable adult” (terms defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.232).
Disorderly conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72 is a broadly defined offense designed to address behavior that disrupts public peace and order or reasonably alarms or angers others. It covers actions ranging from physical fights to loud, offensive language or noise, provided the person knew or should have known their conduct would likely cause a disturbance or provoke a negative reaction. Because clause (2) regarding disturbing lawful assemblies is unconstitutional, the focus remains on fighting/brawling (clause 1) and offensive/abusive/noisy conduct or language (clause 3). The key is often the context and the likely impact of the behavior on those nearby.
It’s important to distinguish disorderly conduct from merely being annoying, expressing unpopular opinions, or engaging in behavior that some might find distasteful but which doesn’t reasonably tend to alarm, anger, or provoke violence. The statute requires conduct that crosses a line into genuinely disruptive or offensive territory, coupled with awareness of its likely impact. Examples help illustrate where this line might be drawn in various common scenarios, from public arguments to noisy parties or confrontations. The enhanced penalty for caregivers highlights specific concern for vulnerable populations.
Two patrons at a crowded bar get into a heated argument. It quickly escalates, and they begin shoving each other, then throwing punches. Other patrons are alarmed, move away quickly, and the bouncers intervene to break up the fight. Both participants are arrested by police called to the scene.
This is a classic example of Disorderly Conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(1). Both individuals engaged in “brawling or fighting” in a public place. Given the crowded environment and the nature of physical altercations, they reasonably should have known their actions would alarm and disturb other patrons and potentially provoke a larger breach of the peace. Both could be charged with a misdemeanor.
A person is arguing loudly with a store clerk over a return policy inside a busy retail store. They use extremely vulgar and abusive language directed at the clerk, shouting obscenities that can be heard throughout the store. Other customers appear visibly disturbed and angered, and some parents quickly usher their children away. The person refuses requests from management to calm down or leave.
This scenario likely constitutes Disorderly Conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(3). The individual engaged in “abusive” and “boisterous” conduct and used “offensive, obscene, or abusive language.” Given the public setting and the aggressive nature of the language, the person knew or should have known it would tend to alarm, anger, or disturb other customers and employees. The language likely goes beyond protected speech into “fighting words” or conduct reasonably tending to arouse resentment.
Residents host a house party that continues late into the night with extremely loud amplified music, shouting, and guests spilling into the yard in a residential neighborhood. Multiple neighbors call the police to complain about the excessive noise preventing them from sleeping. Officers arrive and confirm the noise level is highly disruptive to the neighborhood peace.
The hosts of the party could potentially be charged with Disorderly Conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(3) for engaging in “boisterous, or noisy conduct.” By allowing or creating excessive noise late at night in a residential area, they knew or should have known it would disturb their neighbors (others). The conduct reasonably tends to disturb others and breach the peace of the neighborhood. Charges often depend on the level and duration of the noise and prior warnings.
A caregiver working in a nursing home is frustrated with an elderly resident who has dementia and is being uncooperative. In a common area where other residents and staff are present, the caregiver loudly berates the resident using extremely offensive, obscene, and abusive language, causing the resident distress and alarming other residents and staff members who witness the outburst.
This scenario could lead to an enhanced Disorderly Conduct charge under Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 3. The caregiver engaged in offensive, obscene, or abusive language (conduct violating Subd. 1(3)) knowing or reasonably knowing it would alarm, anger, or disturb others. Because the conduct was committed by a caregiver against a vulnerable adult (as defined in § 609.232), the offense is elevated to a gross misdemeanor with potentially higher penalties (up to 364 days jail/$3,000 fine) compared to the standard misdemeanor charge.
While Disorderly Conduct might seem like a minor charge, a conviction still results in a criminal record. Fortunately, because the statute is broad and often relies on subjective interpretations of conduct and its likely effects, several defenses may be available under Minn. Stat. § 609.72. An effective defense strategy involves carefully examining the specific facts alleged, the context of the incident, and whether the prosecution can truly prove each required element, including the defendant’s knowledge and the nature of the conduct, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Challenging a disorderly conduct charge often involves arguing that the defendant’s actions, while perhaps noticeable or even impolite, did not rise to the level of criminal conduct defined by the statute. Defenses might focus on the lack of prohibited conduct (no fighting, language wasn’t legally offensive), the absence of the required knowledge about the likely impact on others, constitutional free speech protections, or specific statutory exceptions like conduct caused by an epileptic seizure. An attorney can assess the evidence and advise on the most viable defense approaches.
The most basic defense is factual innocence – arguing the defendant did not engage in the alleged conduct at all, or was misidentified.
The statute requires the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to know their conduct would tend to alarm, anger, disturb, or provoke. Challenging this mental state is a key defense.
When charges under clause (3) are based on language, First Amendment free speech protections are critical. Offensive or abusive language is not automatically criminal.
If the charge involves brawling or fighting under clause (1), the defense of self-defense or defense of others may apply.
It’s a misdemeanor crime defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.72 involving specific actions done knowing (or having reason to know) they will likely alarm, anger, disturb others, or provoke violence. Key prohibited acts include brawling/fighting or engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or language tending to cause such reactions. Disturbing a lawful assembly was also included but found unconstitutional.
The statute applies to conduct in both public places (streets, parks, bars, stores) and private places (homes, offices), including explicitly on school buses. Essentially, it can occur anywhere the conduct affects others in the prohibited manner.
No, specific intent to disturb is not required. The standard is lower: you must know, or have reasonable grounds to know, that your conduct will or will tend to cause alarm, anger, disturbance, or provoke an assault or breach of peace. An objective “reasonable person” standard applies to what you should have known.
Not necessarily. While loud arguing can be disruptive, it typically needs to involve offensive, obscene, or abusive language, or be so boisterous or noisy that it reasonably tends to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others nearby to qualify under clause (3). Simply having a loud disagreement might not be enough if the language isn’t abusive and the volume isn’t excessively disruptive to the peace.
Using offensive, obscene, or abusive language can be disorderly conduct under clause (3) if it tends reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. However, the First Amendment protects speech, so the language usually must rise to the level of “fighting words” or be used in a context where it’s clearly intended to provoke or disrupt rather than communicate ideas. Mere vulgarity alone is often protected.
Yes, potentially under clause (3) as “noisy conduct.” If you play music at an excessive volume, particularly late at night in a residential area, knowing or having reason to know it will disturb your neighbors’ peace, it could constitute disorderly conduct. Police often issue warnings first for noise complaints.
Disorderly Conduct (§ 609.72) typically involves individual actions (fighting, offensive conduct/language). Unlawful Assembly (§ 609.705) requires three or more people gathered with unlawful intent (force, disturbing peace) or acting disorderly together. Disorderly conduct can be committed by one person; unlawful assembly requires a group.
It’s a misdemeanor, the least serious category of crime in Minnesota. However, it still results in a criminal record and can carry penalties up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine (or gross misdemeanor penalties for caregivers against vulnerable adults). It should not be taken lightly.
If a person legally defined as a “caregiver” commits disorderly conduct against a “vulnerable adult” (e.g., elderly person, person with disability under their care), the crime is elevated from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, carrying higher potential penalties (up to 364 days jail/$3,000 fine).
The statute specifically mentions epilepsy. While conduct caused by an epileptic seizure is explicitly excluded, the defense might argue that conduct involuntarily caused by another documented medical condition (e.g., Tourette’s syndrome, certain mental health crises) lacked the required knowledge or voluntary action needed for a conviction, though this isn’t an automatic statutory exception like epilepsy.
Public intoxication itself is not a crime in Minnesota. However, if your behavior while intoxicated involves fighting, being excessively noisy, using abusive language towards others, or otherwise meeting the elements of § 609.72, you could be charged with disorderly conduct. The charge would be based on the conduct, not just the intoxication.
If you engaged in fighting (clause 1) solely because you were reasonably defending yourself against an unlawful attack by another person, self-defense can be a valid defense, negating the disorderly conduct charge related to the fight. You must not have been the aggressor and used only reasonable force.
Yes, misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor convictions for disorderly conduct are generally eligible for expungement in Minnesota after meeting statutory waiting periods and eligibility criteria. Expungement seals the record from public view.
It is generally advisable to remain calm, be polite, avoid arguing, and provide identification if requested. You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about the incident. If arrested, clearly state you wish to remain silent and wish to speak to an attorney. Do not resist arrest.
Clause (2), regarding disturbing a lawful assembly or meeting, was found unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Hensel (2017). The court ruled it was overly broad because it could potentially criminalize conduct protected by the First Amendment (like peaceful protest that happens to annoy or “disturb” attendees of a meeting) without requiring proof that the disturbance was substantial or violent. Therefore, clause (2) is no longer enforced.
Although Disorderly Conduct is typically a misdemeanor (unless enhanced under Subd. 3), a conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.72 can still leave a lasting mark. The creation of a criminal record, even for a lower-level offense, can have various collateral consequences that affect an individual’s opportunities and reputation well into the future. It’s a mistake to dismiss a disorderly conduct charge as insignificant due to these potential long-term effects.
A conviction results in a permanent, public criminal record. This record will surface during background checks conducted for employment, housing, volunteer positions, professional licenses, and sometimes educational applications. Even a misdemeanor can raise concerns for screeners, who might interpret the conviction as indicating poor judgment, anger management issues, or disrespect for public order, potentially leading to negative decisions regardless of the actual circumstances of the offense. This record remains unless successfully expunged.
While perhaps less likely to be an absolute bar than a felony, a disorderly conduct conviction can still hinder employment prospects. Some employers have policies against hiring individuals with any recent criminal history. For jobs involving customer service, security, childcare, healthcare, or positions requiring a calm demeanor, a disorderly conduct conviction might be seen as particularly problematic. It may require explanation during interviews, and depending on the employer and the nature of the job, it could be a deciding factor against hiring.
Landlords often perform background checks, and some may deny rental applications based on any criminal record, including misdemeanors like disorderly conduct, viewing it as a potential indicator of future disturbances or conflicts. Similarly, while less common, certain educational programs, particularly those in fields like social work, education, or criminal justice, might consider such convictions during admission. It could also impact eligibility for certain scholarships or positions of responsibility within an educational institution.
A prior conviction for disorderly conduct adds to an individual’s criminal history. If the person faces new criminal charges in the future, prosecutors and judges can consider this prior record. It might lead to less favorable plea offers from prosecutors or slightly harsher sentences imposed by judges compared to someone with no prior record. While a single misdemeanor might not drastically alter outcomes, a pattern of convictions, even for minor offenses, can have a cumulative negative effect in the eyes of the legal system.
Disorderly conduct charges under § 609.72 are highly fact-dependent, and the context surrounding the alleged incident is paramount. An experienced attorney delves deeply into the circumstances: What led up to the incident? Who else was involved? What was the environment like (e.g., noisy bar vs. quiet library)? Was the defendant provoked? They scrutinize the evidence to challenge the prosecution’s narrative regarding the defendant’s knowledge or reasonable grounds to know their conduct would disturb others. By presenting the full context, the attorney can often show that the defendant’s actions were misinterpreted, taken out of context, or lacked the requisite awareness of likely impact required for a conviction, arguing that mere presence during a disturbance or an isolated outburst doesn’t automatically equate to criminal conduct.
When disorderly conduct charges arise from spoken words or expressive conduct under clause (3), First Amendment free speech rights are a critical consideration. Not all offensive, loud, or unpopular speech is illegal. An attorney evaluates whether the speech in question constitutes protected expression rather than unprotected “fighting words” or conduct intended solely to incite immediate violence or disruption. They can argue that the language, however coarse or critical, was part of a protest, a heated but legitimate argument, or simply venting frustration, and did not cross the constitutional line into criminal conduct. Filing motions to dismiss based on First Amendment grounds is a key strategy when applicable, requiring a strong understanding of free speech case law.
A defense attorney meticulously analyzes whether the prosecution can prove each specific element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the conduct actually constitute “brawling or fighting” under clause (1), or was it merely defensive? Did the conduct or language under clause (3) reasonably tend to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others, or was the reaction subjective and unreasonable? Was the alleged conduct actually “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy” according to legal standards? The attorney challenges weak evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and subjective interpretations by police, holding the prosecution to its burden of proving every component of the statutory definition.
Given that disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor (usually), prosecutors may be open to negotiation, especially for first-time offenders or cases with weak evidence. An attorney leverages any factual or legal weaknesses identified in the case to negotiate for favorable outcomes. This might involve seeking an outright dismissal, a continuance for dismissal (charges dropped after a period of good behavior), or a plea to a non-criminal petty misdemeanor or ordinance violation that avoids a criminal record. Achieving such a resolution can be invaluable in protecting the client’s future from the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction, making skilled negotiation a crucial part of the defense strategy.
