Under current law, a peace officer may arrest an individual for any offense the officer observes, including public disorder offenses such as disorderly conduct

Question

Should the prosecution of disorderly conduct require a citizen complainant other than a peace officer? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Favoring requiring a citizen complainant:
• Conduct included in the disorderly conduct statute focuses primarily on acts that upset the public peace. If the behavior does not, in fact, disrupt the public peace, it makes little sense to deem the behavior a crime.
• Disorderly behavior is generally petty in the grand scheme of things. Police resources are better used for more serious matters.
• The police already exercise broad discretion in citing or arresting individuals for disorderly conduct. Such discretion has the potential be unfairly used. A citizen complaint requirement would limit police abuse of authority.
• The nature of acceptable conduct and language may vary from community to community. A citizen complainant requirement would better guide public officials in determining what conduct is actually disruptive in the particular community.

Opposing requiring a citizen complainant:
• The current approach seems to work well enough. No compelling reason exists to change.
• Trained police officers, not individual citizens, are in the best position to decide whether an arrest or citation or no action at all for disruptive behavior accomplishes the broad goal of maintaining the public peace.
• The public expects law enforcement to detect and apprehend individuals who violate the law. Society is not well-served by requiring the average citizen to become involved in these matters, no matter how petty the offense.
• A citizen may not have had as good of view of the disorderly behavior as the arresting officer. Thus, disruptive conduct might occur but insufficient evidence exist to later convict the offender.