April 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 31

ble cause to believe that Plaintiff's
activity in this location violated the
solicitation ordinance. "
Disorderly Conduct
Under the circumstances of this
case, the Philadelphia police officers
had further claimed probable
cause existed to arrest Grant
under the following Pennsylvania
disorderly conduct statute, 18
P.C.S. § 5503(a):
A person is guilty of disorderly
conduct if, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance,
or alarm, or recklessly created a
risk thereof, he: (1) Engages in
fighting or threatening, or in violent
or tumultuous behavior; (2)
Makes unreasonable noise; (3)
Uses obscene language, or makes
an obscene gesture; or (4) Creates
a hazardous or physically offensive
condition by any act which serves
no legitimate purpose of the actor.
As cited by the court, in pertinent
part, the statute defined " public " as
" affecting or likely to affect persons
in a place to which the public or a
substantial group has access, " including
places of amusement and
" any neighborhood, or any premises
which are open to the public. " As
characterized by the court, the disorderly
conduct statute is " aimed
at preventing public disturbance by
focusing upon certain individual
acts, which, if pursued with the intent
to cause public inconvenience,
annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly
creating a risk thereof " :
The offense of disorderly conduct
is not intended as a catchall
for every act which annoys or disturbs
people; it is not to be used
as a dragnet for all the irritations
which breed in the ferment of a
community. Rather, it is intendIn
his lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed he
was " entitled to damages " because
" the police action was unduly forceful
and amounted to an unlawful arrest. "
ed to preserve the public peace.
The cardinal feature of disorderly
conduct is public unruliness which
can or does lead to tumult and disorder.
Viewing
the following facts in
the light most favorable to Grant,
the federal district court concluded
" a reasonable officer could, nevertheless,
conclude from the totality
of the circumstances that Grant's
behavior
constituted
disorderly
conduct " :
On December 21, 2019, four
days before Christmas, Grant
had positioned himself inside a
very crowded Christmas Village,
approximately 10 feet from the
LOVE sign, in the southeast quadrant
of Love Park, surrounded by
Christmas Village vendor booths.
Grant concedes that some observers
at the Christmas Village
felt that he was acting " crazy, "
and viewed his conduct as that of
a " troublemaker " as he addressed
a crowd including children, staff
in hand, in an elevated voice,
while soliciting funds through the
use of a collection basket. When
the Officers approached Grant,
Grant refused to leave.
Under such circumstances, the
federal district court found " the Officers
had probable cause to arrest
Grant for disorderly conduct " as a
matter of law because " no reasonable
jury could find otherwise. "
Police Qualified Immunity
In his lawsuit, Grant had claimed
he was " entitled to damages " because
" the police action was unduly
forceful and amounted to an
unlawful arrest. "
As cited by the federal district
court, unless protected by " qualified
immunity, " police officers
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | APRIL 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
31
April 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of April 2023 - Parks & Recreation
