Disorderly Conduct in Colorado

Disorderly conduct charges commonly arise in the context of raucous public events, wild nights out, and disruptive interpersonal disputes. Disorderly conduct charges can also arise in the context of protests. It’s not uncommon for police to use disorderly conduct charges to silence political protesters and quell demonstrations.

In Colorado, disorderly conduct can be charged as a petty or misdemeanor offense. Disorderly conduct is defined in C.R.S. 18-9-106. The Colorado disorderly conduct statute defines the offense as follows:

C.R.S. Section 18-9-106 Colorado’s Disorderly Conduct Statute

(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or

(b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 708, § 39, effective July 1, 2000.)

(d) Fights with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or

(e) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting or the ritual discharge of blank ammunition cartridges as an attendee at a funeral for a deceased person who was a veteran of the armed forces of the United States; or

(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a real or simulated firearm, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a firearm, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a firearm in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm and does alarm another person.

(2) Repealed.

(3)

(a) An offense pursuant to subsection (1)(a) or (1)(c) of this section is a petty offense; except that, if the offense is committed with intent to disrupt, impair, or interfere with a funeral, or with intent to cause severe emotional distress to a person attending a funeral, it is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(b) An offense pursuant to subsection (1)(d) of this section is a petty offense.

(d) An offense pursuant to subsection (1)(e) of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Possible Penalties for Disorderly Conduct in Colorado

Regardless of the whether the offense is charged as a petty or misdemeanor disorderly conduct offense, the possible penalties for a conviction include possible fines, restitution, probation, or jail. Additionally, a disorderly conduct conviction can result in serious collateral consequences including employment consequences, child custody consequences, housing consequences, immigration consequences, and many other civil consequences that can flow from a disorderly conduct conviction.

Rights & Liberties Law Firm has assembled a possible penalties chart to help you better understand the possible penalties a person charged with disorderly conduct in Colorado will face.

Degree of OFFENSE

Disorderly conduct 18-9-106(1)(a),(c) or (f)

Disorderly conduct 18-9-106(1)(d)

Disorderly conduct 18-9-106(1)(e)

Possible Penalties

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Up to 120 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$750 fine;
Restitution

Petty Offense

Up to 10 days in jail; and/or
$300 fine;
Restitution

Class 1 Misdemeanor

Up to 364 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$1,000 fine;
Restitution

Degree of OFFENSE

Disorderly conduct 18-9-106(1)(a),(c) or (f)

Disorderly conduct 18-9-106(1)(d)

Disorderly conduct 18-9-106(1)(e)

Possible Penalties

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Up to 120 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$750 fine;
Restitution

Petty Offense

Up to 10 days in jail; and/or
$300 fine;
Restitution

Class 1 Misdemeanor

Up to 364 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$1,000 fine;
Restitution

Defenses to Disorderly Conduct in Colorado

General Denial

The accused will be acquitted if the prosecution cannot prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When the accused raises a general denial defense, the accused denies that the criminal elements of the offense exist. General denial is related to the failure of proof defense. The failure of proof defense arises when the accused pokes holes in the prosecution’s case and argues that the prosecution failed to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lack of Intent

The lack of intent defense to disorderly conduct is a general denial defense that attacks the mental state element of the offense, the intent element of the disorderly conduct charge. The accused can raise this defense to argue that although the accused may have engaged in conduct that gave rise to the alleged disorderly conduct, the accused did not have the intent to commit the offense.

First Amendment – Free Speech, Right to Assemble, and Protest Defense to Disorderly Conduct

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. II. Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution protects an individual’s right to freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. These rights are instrumental in allowing citizens to express their views and to protest without fear of government interference.

The right to peaceful protest is closely tied to the freedom of speech. This means that individuals have the right to express their views, even if they are controversial or unpopular, without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to assemble peaceably is also protected, allowing people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas.

When disorderly conduct charges arise out of protest or speech related activities, in certain circumstances the accused can raise a free speech, right to assemble and protest defense. This defense involves arguing that the actions taken were a form of protected speech or assembly. Free speech defenses involves a complex fact specific inquiry the depends heavily on the details of the case, including the nature of the disruption, the intent of the individual, and the impact on the audience. In certain circumstances, the First Amendment can be a powerful defense to disorderly conduct.

Disorderly Conduct, the First Amendment, and Fighting Words

Colorado’s disturbance of the peace statute is narrowly drawn to ban only “fighting words.” “Fighting words” are those words “which by their very utterance tend to incite others to unlawful conduct or provoke retaliatory actions amounting to a breach of the peace.” People v. ex rel. R.C., 2016 COA 166, ¶ 10, 411 P.3d 1105, 1108. To qualify as speech likely to incite a breach of the peace, it is not enough that words, gestures, or displays “stir the public to anger,” “invite dispute,” or “create a disturbance”; they must “produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” Id. at 1108. Today, “fighting words” are limited to “speech that, in the context in which it is uttered, is so inflammatory that it is akin to dropping a match into a pool of gasoline.” Id. at 1110. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the disturbance of the peace statute “cannot proscribe free speech unless the words spoken are “fighting words.”

When a person is charged with disorderly conduct under 18-9-106(1)(a) which criminalizes making an offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place when the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace, a First Amendment “not fighting words” defense may be raised. This defense often arises in contempt of cop cases where people insult or swear at cops – an unadvisable but still First Amendment protected speech activity. Another common scenario where this First Amendment defense arises is in protest related cases where people are arrested for expressing their opinions and speaking their minds. The First Amendment “not fighting words” defense is a righteous and powerful defense from unjust disorderly conduct charges aimed at thwarting political expression and silencing those who make their voices heard.

Mistaken Identity

Mistaken identity is a general denial defense that attacks the element of who committed the alleged offense. As the prosecution is required not only to prove that the offense happened, but that the person charged committed the offense, the mistaken identity defense can be an effective way to challenge the prosecution on the element of who committed the crime. In the context of a disorderly conduct case, mistaken identify defenses usually arise when the accused is arrested and charged with disobedience to public safety orders in riot conditions after the alleged offense happened or when the accused is identified after a chaotic situation where eyewitness accounts are not trustworthy. Mistaken identity cases often involve witness misidentification issues, poor witness perception issues, inaccurate, improper, or biased police identification procedures, grainy surveillance videos, and mistaken eyewitness accounts.

Alternate Suspect

The alternate suspect defense occasionally arises in disorderly conduct cases. When the accused raises the alternate suspect defense, he or she does so to cast doubt on the identity element of the offense. In other words, the alternate suspect defense is used to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence that the accused committed the crime. By raising the alternate suspect defense, the accused casts doubt on the identity element of offense by raising the possibility that another person committed the offense rather than the accused. In Colorado disorderly conduct trials the admissibility of alternate suspect evidence will depend on “the strength of the connection between the alternate suspect and the charged crime. If there is a non-speculative connection or nexus between the alternate suspect and the crime charged, the evidence will be admissible.”

If the defense introduces “alternate suspect” evidence, the judge must “look to whether all the similar acts and circumstances, taken together, support a finding that the same person was probably involved in both the other act and the charged crime.” If the judge finds that the accused has presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that an alternate suspect committed the crime, the accused can have the jury consider this evidence in their deliberations. While the alternate suspect defense is seldom used in disorderly conduct cases, certain circumstances will give rise to the availability of this defense.

Duress

Under Colorado’s duress statute C.R.S. 18-1-708, a person may not be convicted of an offense, other than a class 1 felony, based upon conduct in which he engaged at the direction of another person because of the use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him or upon another person, which force or threatened use thereof a reasonable person in his situation would have been unable to resist. This defense is not available when a person intentionally or recklessly places himself in a situation in which it is foreseeable that he will be subjected to such force or threatened use thereof. The choice of evils defense, provided in section 18-1-702, shall not be available to a defendant in addition to the defense of duress provided under this section unless separate facts exist which warrant its application.

Choice of Evils

Under Colorado’s choice of evils statute, C.R.S. 18-1-702 (1) conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. When evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered by the defendant, before it is submitted for the consideration of the jury, the court shall first rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.

Statute of Limitations for disorderly conductin Colorado

In Colorado the statute of limitations for commencing criminal charges against a person is governed by C.R.S. Section 16-5-401. The statute of limitations for commencing criminal charges for disorderly conduct in Colorado is as follows:

Misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges must be filed with 18 months. C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a.5)
Petty disorderly conduct charges must be filed within 6 months. C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a.5)

Contact the experienced attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm to Fight for You Today

If you’ve been charged with a disorderly conduct contact the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm to vindicate your rights and protect your liberties. If you’re facing criminal charges or fear you may be charged time is of the essence. Start Your Free Criminal Defense Case Quote. By retaining Rights & Liberties Law Firm you can rest assured that:

The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will use experienced investigators and experts to look into the case to get ahead of the police and prosecutors, whether there has already been an arrest or an investigation is on-going;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will advocate for you during your bond hearing to get you released from custody on the lowest possible amount of bail or on a personal recognizance bond;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will litigate all constitutional violations and fight to suppress any evidence illegally seized or obtained by police and investigators in violation of your rights;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are trial dogs. If you’re prepared to go all the way, so are we. We’ll take your case to the jury and fight with everything we’ve got to secure your acquittal.
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are skilled negotiators. If you’ve made a mistake we will leave no stone unturned in presenting mitigation to contextualize your circumstances. We will obtain information and prepare a mitigation presentation or report to the prosecutor to present you in your best light and show the state and the judge that despite your mistakes you’re a dignified human being worthy of leniency and redemption. We will protect you from the overly punitive instincts of the criminal legal system and obtain the best plea bargain possible.
If you’re up against the wall facing serious charges, jail, or prison time the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm have your back. From drug distribution and barfights to sex assaults and homicides the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm know that life gets wild and things fall apart. We’ll fight to keep your life together and advocate to ensure that you receive a non-prison sentence, or one which results in the lowest amount of prison time possible.
If you’re wondering why we do this work, we’re in it because we care. At Rights & Liberties Law Firm we believe that no individual’s crime holds a candle to the injustices meted out by our unusually cruel overly punitive criminal legal system. At Rights & Liberties Law Firm we fight for people whose talents, dreams, and lives have been put on hold by a criminal accusation. Let us fight for you.