Disorderly Conduct ticket

[dihappy]

As far as i can remember from being a "security guard" a long time ago, we could not "detain" ANYONE for any reason. If you were making a citizens arrest, you had to make it known to that person.

[srothstein]

WAIT. We seem to have a lot of opinions on the board and even some quotes from Wikipedia, but very few factual answers.

The one poster who quoted the law is correct that your description of the events does not match the elements of the offense. The law requires the language to be profane or abusive, used in a public place, and it must tend to incite a breach of the peace. No where is the word offensive mentioned in this section of the law.

So, by your description, the language used was abusive and possibly profane, and the parking lot was a public place. There is no indication that there was any tendency to incite the breach of the peace, so there was no law broken.

Note that this is based on your description and the officer's report may have other information in it. The security guard and the officer may have gotten together after the incident (they do work together) and clarified the report language. It is important to note that the language does NOT have to cause a breach of the peace, just tend to. If the language made the security officer mad enough to want to hit you but he restrained himself out of professionalism, then the tendency was there and the ticket is good. But this tendency has to be shown in the report.

Someone posted that an officer could not be the offended party. I can personally guarantee that this is not mentioned anywhere in the law and is not true. I have written many tickets for other types of violations that do require someone being offended where I was the offended party. This may be a common belief, but the courts have ruled many times that an officer is still a citizen and does not give up his rights because of the job.

Others posted that the officer could not write the ticket because the victim (offended party) needs to file the complaint with the court. Again, this is not written in the law anywhere and cops write tickets all of the time for offenses they did not see. As proof of this, think how many tickets get written for shoplifters that got caught by security guards and detained untilt he officer gets there, or how many tickets get written at traffic accidents where the officer did not see the accident. And before you object that there is evidence there, an eyewitness testimony is evidence enough if the officer believes the witness. A ticket may or may not be the complaint filed with the court. Some cities use the ticket itself as the complaint, others use it simply as another form of report and generate a formal complaint for the court. But a complaint only requires probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is certainly legal to write a ticket for an offense that you did not see.

Part of the confusion on this issue is the officer's authority for an arrest. To make the arrest for the misdemeanor, an officer must have it occur in his presence or view or fit into a few minor exceptions to that rule. But to write a ticket is not an arrest. To make a traffic stop is an arrest under the Kurtz decision, but it said nothing about non-traffic arrests or citations. Just as an officer can file charges on someone for an offense they cannot arrest for, they can write a ticket the same way.


EDIT: I forgot to reiterate, the ticket is probably not a valid charge due to not including the elements of the offense. Make sure your lawyer knows that when he meets with the DA. If he does not or the DA won't drop the charge do not plead it out, even with deferred adjudication. Work a plea bargain where you plead guilty to some other class C misdemeanor that is not part of 42.01 (maybe a class C assault threat or something similar). Then you won't have to worry about your CHL. It sounds stupid to be able to plead guilty to an assault but not to cursing in public, but that is the law.

[marksiwel]

Since when is alittle Colorful Language "incite a breach of the peace"?

Really this "Law" runs roughshod all over the 1st.

Its like that Sodomy Law in Texas, that wasnt really tested until it went before the SCOTUS (Lawerance V Texas?) They detrmined that the Law overstepped peoples rights, but its still on the books it just wont be inforced (like those silly flag burning laws) You should make a name for yourself and get this thrown all the way up to the SCOTUS!
Have you called the ACLU yet?

[McKnife]

I'm still interested in the fact that the security guard blocked you in... which prevented you from leaving. If you felt you were held against your will, then I would file suit.

I had a similar incident at a school in 2005 but the security guard calmed down and understood when I said I was there for transcripts. You were wronged and I hope you fight the school and guard, not just the ticket.

[capttjk]

I'm still interested in the fact that the security guard blocked you in... which prevented you from leaving. If you felt you were held against your will, then I would file suit.

I had a similar incident at a school in 2005 but the security guard calmed down and understood when I said I was there for transcripts. You were wronged and I hope you fight the school and guard, not just the ticket.

Being around a school seems more lake a jail these days. I graduated high school in 94 and back in those days nothing like this would have happened. There were no security guards or police officers at a high school. At least not where I came from. We had a few adults that were hall monitors and that was about it. I had about a 20 minute conversation with the police officer yesterday (who was a very professional guy and I enjoyed talking with him, even though he wrote me the ticket ) and he explained all the security procedures that take place in a school these days and I was shocked. My wife who has worked there for 10 years wasn't even aware of many of them. That was the reason I was aparently in the wrong parking lot for a visitor in the first place.

But yes, I need some clarification as to what a security guard has the right to do and not to do. He did detain me. I will ask the lawyer I see on Friday about how I was not allowed to leave by the security guard. I was trying to leave since he told me I wasn't supposed to be there, but he really wanted the police involved since I was apartently an "unknown" parking in the wrong lot. I am glad schools have security, I am know its necessary now days. But, just because I park in the wrong parking lot, that doesn't mean I need to be yelled at and talked down to by one of their employees either. After a few minutes of this the bad word came out. I look back at it and it all just seems so stupid and trivial. Hopfully the lawyer will help clean this up.

Needless to say, I won't be meeting my wife for lunch at her place of work anymore!!

[marksiwel]

I'm still interested in the fact that the security guard blocked you in... which prevented you from leaving. If you felt you were held against your will, then I would file suit.

I had a similar incident at a school in 2005 but the security guard calmed down and understood when I said I was there for transcripts. You were wronged and I hope you fight the school and guard, not just the ticket.

Being around a school seems more lake a jail these days. I graduated high school in 94 and back in those days nothing like this would have happened. There were no security guards or police officers at a high school. At least not where I came from. We had a few adults that were hall monitors and that was about it. I had about a 20 minute conversation with the police officer yesterday (who was a very professional guy and I enjoyed talking with him, even though he wrote me the ticket ) and he explained all the security procedures that take place in a school these days and I was shocked. My wife who has worked there for 10 years wasn't even aware of many of them. That was the reason I was aparently in the wrong parking lot for a visitor in the first place.

But yes, I need some clarification as to what a security guard has the right to do and not to do. He did detain me. I will ask the lawyer I see on Friday about how I was not allowed to leave by the security guard. I was trying to leave since he told me I wasn't supposed to be there, but he really wanted the police involved since I was apartently an "unknown" parking in the wrong lot. I am glad schools have security, I am know its necessary now days. But, just because I park in the wrong parking lot, that doesn't mean I need to be yelled at and talked down to by one of their employees either. After a few minutes of this the bad word came out. I look back at it and it all just seems so stupid and trivial. Hopfully the lawyer will help clean this up.

Needless to say, I won't be meeting my wife for lunch at her place of work anymore!!

If you dont have lunch with your life this "terrorist" wins

[capttjk]

Hey everyone,

I was looking at the TX DOT website and found new information, new CHL legislation that went into effect 9/1/09

This is related to Eligibility and Disciplinary Actions

It reads as follows:

1. Definitions of "conviction" and "Felony"

Section 411.171 is amended to exclude from the definition of 'conviction' those convictions or orders of deferred adjudication that have been:
"vacated, set-aside, annulled,invalidated,voided, or sealed"

The most common situation is likely to be a conviction "set-aside," which may (but need not) follow the successful completion of probation.

it goes on from there with new changes.

It almost reads to me that with this new modification a deferred adjudication would no longer qualify for revocation for your CHL. Maybe some of the legal experts on here to tell me if I am reading this correctly or not. It looks like it came from SB 1424 during the 09 TX legislative session.

[RPB]

Hey everyone,

I was looking at the TX DOT website and found new information, new CHL legislation that went into effect 9/1/09

This is related to Eligibility and Disciplinary Actions

It reads as follows:

1. Definitions of "conviction" and "Felony"

Section 411.171 is amended to exclude from the definition of 'conviction' those convictions or orders of deferred adjudication that have been: "vacated, set-aside, annulled,invalidated,voided, or sealed"

The most common situation is likely to be a conviction "set-aside," which may (but need not) follow the successful completion of probation.

it goes on from there with new changes.

It almost reads to me that with this new modification a deferred adjudication would no longer qualify for revocation for your CHL. Maybe some of the legal experts on here to tell me if I am reading this correctly or not. It looks like it came from SB 1424 during the 09 TX legislative session.

Although I'm not a lawyer, from what you posted above, my layman's thoughts are that it seems a deferred adjudication STILL gets you revoked, unless that deferred adjudication is LATER "vacated, set-aside, annulled, invalidated,voided, or sealed"

But Charles, or other lawyers here would know a lot that us laypersons don't. I don't know what's involved in getting a deferred adjudication, once entered/ordered "vacated, set-aside, annulled, invalidated,voided, or sealed"

[casingpoint]

This is getting ridiculous. The ticket is no good. The security guard, obviously an idiot, is subject to a charge of illegal restraint. The cop should get a ticket for...well, something. And if all else fails, after sometime in June when the MacDonald decision is announced, there will be no narrow, compelling governmental interest served in denying CHL's to persons who have offended a security guard by mouthing off...not to mention the fact that the security guard was way outside his authority talking to you like that, causing you to think you were in peril. You shoulda tased him, bro.

[VoiceofReason]

Hey everyone,

Just a quick question. I know this has probably been talked about before but I want to know what will happen.

I got a ticket for Disorderly Contduct-language. Class C. Did NOT get arrested and its just a ticket which the police officer said was on the same level as a speeding ticket. I have never had anything like this in my life and have had my CHL for 9 years. I have a lawyer working on it and she said if they can't get it dismissed, I can probably get a deferred adjudication and get rid of it that way.

My understanding from what I have always learned is that a Class C didn't matter for a CHL. But when I read the statute is sounds like ANY Disorderly Conduct will cause you to loose your CHL. If so, will going the route of deferred adjudicaiton keep a revocation from occuring?

Just curious as to what will happen.

thanks for the imputs.

OK, so, had you called him a jerk, fool, idiot, etc., etc., etc., but not used profanity could you have received a D.C. Language? That surly would have offended him but would it have been unlawfull?

Just curious.

[marksiwel]

Hey everyone,

Just a quick question. I know this has probably been talked about before but I want to know what will happen.

I got a ticket for Disorderly Contduct-language. Class C. Did NOT get arrested and its just a ticket which the police officer said was on the same level as a speeding ticket. I have never had anything like this in my life and have had my CHL for 9 years. I have a lawyer working on it and she said if they can't get it dismissed, I can probably get a deferred adjudication and get rid of it that way.

My understanding from what I have always learned is that a Class C didn't matter for a CHL. But when I read the statute is sounds like ANY Disorderly Conduct will cause you to loose your CHL. If so, will going the route of deferred adjudicaiton keep a revocation from occuring?

Just curious as to what will happen.

thanks for the imputs.

OK, so, had you called him a jerk, fool, idiot, etc., etc., etc., but not used profanity could you have received a D.C. Language? That surly would have offended him but would it have been unlawfull?

Just curious.

The real question is, since when are words Legally banned?

[VoiceofReason]

Hey everyone,

Just a quick question. I know this has probably been talked about before but I want to know what will happen.

I got a ticket for Disorderly Contduct-language. Class C. Did NOT get arrested and its just a ticket which the police officer said was on the same level as a speeding ticket. I have never had anything like this in my life and have had my CHL for 9 years. I have a lawyer working on it and she said if they can't get it dismissed, I can probably get a deferred adjudication and get rid of it that way.

My understanding from what I have always learned is that a Class C didn't matter for a CHL. But when I read the statute is sounds like ANY Disorderly Conduct will cause you to loose your CHL. If so, will going the route of deferred adjudicaiton keep a revocation from occuring?

Just curious as to what will happen.

thanks for the imputs.

OK, so, had you called him a jerk, fool, idiot, etc., etc., etc., but not used profanity could you have received a D.C. Language? That surly would have offended him but would it have been unlawfull?

Just curious.

The real question is, since when are words Legally banned?

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution but I would use discretion in exercising that freedom in court, among a few other places I could think of.

[Dave01]

In many cases, I feel people are too quick to bring the "law" (Police, lawyers, courts, etc) into mundane situations. Sadly, I think you have to pursue the "detainment" by the security guard in court as others have suggested.

First, you have cause (imo).

Second, this may not be the first time this security guard has acted in this manner. If it was, it may not be the last. It is unlikely he will be reprimanded for his actions, unless the issues is forced. I'm not saying he should be fired, but it does appear he needs some retraining, and possibly someone to remove that "chip" off his shoulder. The only way I see this happening is if he and/or the school has to deal with the legal consequences of HIS actions, as unfortunately you have to deal with yours.

Having said that, I know your lawyer doesn't work for free so.....

[Trinitite]

You can press charges for unlawful restraint but it's probably not worth the effort.

If your wife has seniority or is popular at the school, a better solution is for her to complain to the principal that the guard was abusive at her husband. If the guard doesn't get fired, go up the ladder. The guard has probably been a jerk before. Get some teachers and parents together and complain to the school board.

You can also file a complain with DPS. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/consum ... laints.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[McKnife]

Is there an update to this story? Was a complaint filed? Charges dropped for the disorderly?

Charges filed on the security guard, school, district or employer of guard?

I'd love to know. Thanks!