On Point blog, page 1 of 2
Defense win: Social media posts mixing photos of guns and a crowded theatre was protected speech, not a “true threat”
Town of Brookfield v. Martin M. Gonzalez, 2021AP218, District 2, 10/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Gonzalez posted some photos on Instagram as a “story,” a series of shorter, more casual, less permanent images or posts than standard posts on a user’s Instagram feed (so we’re told). The first photo showed a ticket to an upcoming movie at a Brookfield cinema. The second showed loose bullets and a hand holding a loaded magazine. The third showed the inside of a darkened movie theater. (¶3). This “story” led to Gonzalez being convicted for violating the municipality’s disorderly conduct ordinance, a conviction the court of appeals now vacates.
Defense win: Disorderly conduct charges precluded by First Amendment
State v. Aaron Matthew Oleston, 2020AP952-CR, District 4, 7/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Olseston was charged with five counts of disorderly conduct for “hurling profanities and personal insults” (¶14) at Janesville police officers as they came and left the police station, as well as filming some of the encounters. Three of the five counts can’t be prosecuted because Oleston’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment; the other two can be, because they went beyond protected speech.
State presented sufficient evidence to support adjudication for making terrorist threats
State v. D.A.M., 2020AP821, District 2, 11/25/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence at D.A.M.’s trial was sufficient to show his conduct constituted a terrorist threat under § 947.019.
True threat instruction wasn’t needed at this disorderly conduct jury trial
State v. Joseph K. Edwards, 2019AP2138-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Edwards was charged with disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon for “creepy, stalker-like behavior.” (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his complaint that the jury wasn’t instructed on the definition of “true threat” under State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762.
“True threat” instruction wasn’t needed at disorderly conduct trial
State v. Kaprisha E. Greer, 2019AP806-CR, District 1, 1/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Greer seeks a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground that the jury at her disorderly conduct trial should have been instructed about the meaning of “true threat” because the state elicited evidence about a threat during its case-in-chief. The court of appeals rejects her claim.
It’s a fact—the defendant’s hair looked “marvelous”!
State v. Keith J. Eggum, 2016AP2036-CR, District 2, 11/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
And that factual finding dooms Eggum’s claim that his “noticeably disheveled” appearance made his trial unfair. Eggum’s complaint about the presence of extra officers for courtroom security fares no better. And topping it all off, Eggum’s First Amendment defense to the disorderly conduct charge makes no headway, either.
Child neglect, disorderly conduct convictions withstand challenge
State v. Ginger M. Breitzman, 2015AP1610-CR, District 1, 8/16/16 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 3/13/2017; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rebuffs Breitzman’s arguments that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of child neglect and disorderly conduct and that her trial lawyer was ineffective.
First Amendment protects juvenile’s “crude and vulgar” YouTube video against disorderly conduct charge, but not against charge of unlawful use of computerized communication system
State v. Kaleb K., 2013AP839, District 4, 11/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Kaleb posted a video on YouTube that depicted him “rapping” a song about his Spanish teacher. The song used “crude and vulgar sexual language” about the teacher. (¶2). (The trial court was harsher, characterizing the video as “obscene and hate-filled” and “shocking, hard to watch, really disgusting.” (¶3).) Based on the video Kaleb was charged in juvenile court with disorderly conduct under § 947.01(1) and unlawful use of a computerized communication system under § 947.0125(2)(d).
First Amendment – Overbreadth – “True Threat” – False Bomb Scare
State v. Robert T., 2008 WI App 22For Robert T.: Bradley J. Bloch
Issue: Whether § 947.015 (2003-04) (“Bomb Scares”) is overbroad and therefore cannot support prosecution for a phoned-in but false bomb threat.
Holding:
¶12 Robert T. argues that the statute suffers from overbreadth because it prohibits speech that could be protected. We disagree. Prior Wisconsin opinions have held that only “true threats” are punishable,
§ 947.01, Disorderly Conduct – Interference with Right to Protest in Public Place
Ralph Ovadal v. City of Madison, 416 F.3d 351 (7th Cir 2005)
Issue/Holding: Use of disorderly conduct to Overdal’s peaceful protest (displaying large signs on Beltline pedestrian overpass) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him; however, remand required to determine whether the ban was content neutral and narrowly tailored.