Disorderly conduct consists of:

A. engaging in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct which tends to disturb the peace; or

B. maliciously disturbing, threatening or, in an insolent manner, intentionally touching any house occupied by any person.

Whoever commits disorderly conduct is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-20-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 20-1; 1967, ch. 120, § 1.

Prosecution for disorderly conduct while intoxicated. — The Detoxification Reform Act does not preclude criminal prosecution for disorderly conduct when the accused's conduct otherwise satisfies the statutory elements of the charge, regardless of whether the offender is intoxicated. State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC-051, 147 N.M. 291, 222 P.3d 1.

Insufficient evidence. — Where police officers responded to a call from defendant's neighbor who alleged that defendant had made death threats to the neighbor; when defendant answered the officers' knock on the door, the officers identified themselves as police officers and asked to talk to defendant; defendant shut and locked the metal security door and refused to talk to the officers; upon a second request for cooperation by the officers, defendant raised his voice, used profanity and instructed the officers to leave; the officers observed that defendant was heavily intoxicated; defendant was joined at the door by his friend who made obscene gestures and yelled profanities at the officers through the screen door; and the record did not reveal any threatening conduct toward the officers, the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction of disorderly conduct. State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC-051, 147 N.M. 291, 222 P.3d 1.

Constitutionality. — This section is not void for vagueness and is not overly broad. State v. James M., 1990-NMCA-135, 111 N.M. 473, 806 P.2d 1063, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 529, 807 P.2d 227 (1991).

No common-law crime. — There is no common-law crime of disorderly conduct; hence, unless the acts complained of fall clearly within the statute, they are not disorderly. State v. Florstedt, 1966-NMSC-208, 77 N.M. 47, 419 P.2d 248.

Elements of offense. — To violate this section, defendant's conduct must have (1) been indecent or profane and (2) tended to disturb the peace. State v. James M., 1990-NMCA-135, 111 N.M. 473, 806 P.2d 1063, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 529, 807 P.2d 227 (1991).

Evidence supported defendant's conviction of disorderly conduct, where defendant - while pointing and flailing his arms - directed loud and profane language to another person, and defendant's conduct supported an intervening police officer's belief that a fight was possible. State v. James M., 1990-NMCA-135, 111 N.M. 473, 806 P.2d 1063, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 529, 807 P.2d 227 (1991).

Meaning of "indecent". — Meaning of indecent includes that tending toward or being in fact something generally viewed as morally indelicate or improper or offensive. State v. Oden, 1971-NMCA-062, 82 N.M. 563, 484 P.2d 1273.

Disturbing peace as breach thereof. — The meaning of "disturb the peace" in this statute is not strained if equated with the words "breach of the peace" as used in New York statute. State v. Florstedt, 1966-NMSC-208, 77 N.M. 47, 419 P.2d 248.

Tendency to disturb peace. — All this section required in the case at hand was indecent conduct which tended to disturb the peace; conduct which is inconsistent with the peaceable and orderly conduct of society tends to disturb the peace and quiet of the community. State v. Oden, 1971-NMCA-062, 82 N.M. 563, 484 P.2d 1273.

Section contemplates conduct which tends to disturb the peace; a breach of the peace is a disturbance of public order by an act of violence or by any act likely to produce violence or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community. State v. Doe, 1978-NMSC-072, 92 N.M. 100, 583 P.2d 464.

Nonprovocative objection to police detention. — One is not to be punished for nonprovocatively voicing his objection to what he obviously feels is a highly questionable detention by a police officer. State v. Doe, 1978-NMSC-072, 92 N.M. 100, 583 P.2d 464.

Determining nature of conduct. — Since disturbance is viewed in relation to the peace and quiet of the community, the question of disturbing the peace would not be determined solely by the reaction of the girls toward whom his conduct was directed. State v. Oden, 1971-NMCA-062, 82 N.M. 563, 484 P.2d 1273.

Conduct indecent. — Where defendant by language and gesture referred to male and female sex organs while talking to girls on tennis courts and after defendant's companions appeared naked he asked girls if they had ever seen a nude boy before, there was substantial evidence that defendant's conduct was indecent and tended to disturb the peace. State v. Oden, 1971-NMCA-062, 82 N.M. 563, 484 P.2d 1273.

Blocking of road by cars was not disorderly conduct. State v. Florstedt, 1966-NMSC-208, 77 N.M. 47, 419 P.2d 248.

Elements of breach of peace not present. — Where the defendant was angry and had his fist clenched but made no gesture or movement toward some police officers, and there was no evidence that a crowd was gathering, that the defendant was inciting belligerent behavior or that he was causing consternation or alarm, then the defendant's words and actions did not constitute disorderly conduct. State v. Doe, 1978-NMSC-072, 92 N.M. 100, 583 P.2d 464.

Offensive statements directed at police. — Because police officers are held to a higher standard of tolerance for abuse or offensive language, evidence that defendant directed offensive statements at an officer who had come onto his premises was insufficient to support a conviction for disorderly conduct. State v. Hawkins, 1999-NMCA-126, 128 N.M. 245, 991 P.2d 989.

Tendency to disturb peace not shown. — Where officer saw no acts of violence or indecent behavior, nor did he hear any boisterous, loud, noisy or profane language and he observed only a gathering crowd of teenagers and people in their early twenties, conviction for disorderly conduct would be overturned as conduct was not such as "tends to disturb the peace." State v. Florstedt, 1966-NMSC-208, 77 N.M. 47, 419 P.2d 248.

Acquittal bars retrial for battery. — After a magistrate's determination that the defendant was not guilty of resisting and obstructing an officer and disorderly conduct because he was acting in defense of another, the state cannot charge him with battery on a police officer and constitutionally bring him before a new fact finder to relitigate that same factual issue. State v. Orosco, 1982-NMCA-181, 99 N.M. 180, 655 P.2d 1024.

Probable cause for arrest. — A police officer who heard defendant use loud and profane language and observed a woman whose actions indicated to him that defendant was bothering her had probable cause to arrest defendant for disorderly conduct. State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.

Police did not have probable cause to arrest an anti-war protestor for disorderly conduct where the anti-war protestor chanted the non-abusive, non-profane slogan "police strike" for about one minute and then stood quietly in the street or to arrest an anti-war protestor who was ringing a cow bell during the protest. Buck v. City of Albuquerque, 549 F. 3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2008).

Evidence sufficient for conviction. — Since the defendant while attempting to drive on military base refused to show his identification to the officer at the gate and the prosecution's witnesses all testified that they perceived the defendant's actions as a physical threat to the officer, and the few inconsistencies in the recollections of three other witnesses did not detract from their account that the defendant was either struggling with the officer or attempting to hit him with his elbow, evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of disorderly conduct. United States v. Stenzel, 49 F.3d 658 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 840, 116 S. Ct. 123, 133 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1995).

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to criminal law, see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 323 (1983).

12 Am. Jur. 2d Breach of Peace and Disorderly Conduct §§ 30 to 37.

Police officer, failure of one on street to obey order of, to move on, as disorderly conduct, 65 A.L.R.2d 1152.

Students: participation of student in demonstration on or near campus as warranting imposition of criminal liability for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, trespass, unlawful assembly or similar offense, 32 A.L.R.3d 551.

Validity and construction of statutes or ordinances prohibiting profanity or profane swearing or cursing, 5 A.L.R.4th 956.

Insulting words addressed directly to police officer as breach of peace or disorderly conduct, 14 A.L.R.4th 1252.

Validity, construction, and effect of "hate crimes" statutes, "ethnic intimidation" statutes, or the like, 22 A.L.R.5th 261.

27 C.J.S. Disorderly Conduct § 1 (2).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Validity, construction, and operation of federal disorderly conduct regulation (36 C.F.R. § 2.34), 180 A.L.R. Fed. 637.