So I'm trying to figure out what I want to do with my trial.

[jzacker]

If you're serious about fighting the charge, you need to write down exactly what happened and what each person said and did.  What did they ask you to do, how did you repond?  I've just been seeing this incident via YouTube and posts here, so I may not have all my facts correct.

But once you write everything down, you check your actions against the statute which is posted below.

I think you can demonstrate your actions were not 'hazardous' or 'violent' or 'tumultuous' or 'obscene' or 'derisive' or 'offensive'.
You did not 'interfere' with anything (like the court proceedings).
You did not block vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
You did not make loud or unreasonable noise.
etc., etc., etc.

But are you guilty of ignoring a lawful order?  Look at the definition of 'lawful order'.  A lawful order is given to PREVENT a person from violating other parts of the statute.  Since wearing a hat would not have violated any other part of the statute, the order wasn't lawful in that context.

Did they order you to leave?  If they ASKED you to leave and you didn't, its not an 'order'.  If they ordered you to leave and you didn't, there may be a case here.  So in your statements to the court, always try to say they made a 'request', not a directive.

Also understand that your version of events may differ from the officers'.  So if you have witnesses, bring them.

And remember, the prosecution has the burden of proof.  If they haven't proven that you violated part of the statute, ask the judge to dismiss.  Your goal should first be to figure out which part of the statute you are accused of violating, then poke holes in the prosecutions argument.  Attack their argument!

Lastly you should tell the judge that it was freaking cold that day, so wearing a hat is not completely unreasonable, even indoors.  You are tall and skinny.  You can claim you feel the cold more than fat ugly police officers.  If you get an older judge, they may have sympathy.  The officers response was excessive.  They overreacted.  You may also bring up the fact that you were offered a plea, and rejected it.  It provides evidence of an innocent mind.

The 'religious' argument of wearing a hat is not an easy one to make.  If you cannot prove to the judge that you actually practice a religion that requires you to cover your head, you are out of luck.   Also since you didn't bring up that the hat was religious when the incident occurred, you will come off as disingenuous.  Judges like honesty and brevity.  Be straightforward, be honest, be brief, and be confident.  In other words, be yourself.

good luck.



644:2 Disorderly Conduct. – A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
    I. He knowingly or purposely creates a condition which is hazardous to himself or another in a public place by any action which serves no legitimate purpose; or
    II. He or she:
       (a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or
       (b) Directs at another person in a public place obscene, derisive, or offensive words which are likely to provoke a violent reaction on the part of an ordinary person; or
       (c) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any public street or sidewalk or the entrance to any public building; or
       (d) Engages in conduct in a public place which substantially interferes with a criminal investigation, a firefighting operation to which RSA 154:17 is applicable, the provision of emergency medical treatment, or the provision of other emergency services when traffic or pedestrian management is required; or
       (e) Knowingly refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer to move from or remain away from any public place; or
    III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:
       (a) Making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place, or making loud or unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place or other private places, which noises would disturb a person of average sensibilities; or
       (b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility; or
       (c) Disrupting any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority.
    III-a. When noise under subparagraph III(a) is emanating from a vehicle's sound system or any portable sound system located within a vehicle, a law enforcement officer shall be considered a person of average sensibilities for purposes of determining whether the volume of such noise constitutes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, and the officer may take enforcement action to abate such noise upon detecting the noise, or upon receiving a complaint from another person.
    IV. (a) Whenever a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a serious threat to the public health or safety is created by a flood, storm, fire, earthquake, explosion, riot, ongoing criminal activity that poses a risk of bodily injury, or other disaster, the officer may close the area where the threat exists and the adjacent area necessary to control the threat or to prevent its spread, for the duration of the threat, until related law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service operations are complete, by means of ropes, markers, uniformed emergency service personnel, or any other reasonable means, to any persons not authorized by a peace officer or emergency services personnel to enter or remain within the closed area.
       (b) Peace officers may close the immediate area surrounding any emergency field command post activated for the purpose of abating any threat enumerated in this paragraph to any unauthorized persons, whether or not the field command post is located near the source of the threat.
       (c) Any unauthorized person who knowingly enters an area closed pursuant to this paragraph or who knowingly remains within the area after receiving a lawful order from a peace officer to leave shall be guilty of disorderly conduct.
    V. In this section:
       (a) ""Lawful order'' means:
          (1) A command issued to any person for the purpose of preventing said person from committing any offense set forth in this section, or in any section of Title LXII or Title XXI, when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that said person is about to commit any such offense, or when said person is engaged in a course of conduct which makes his commission of such an offense imminent;
          (2) A command issued to any person to stop him from continuing to commit any offense set forth in this section, or in any section of Title LXII or Title XXI, when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that said person is presently engaged in conduct which constitutes any such offense; or
          (3) A command not to enter or a command to leave an area closed pursuant to paragraph IV, provided that a person may not lawfully be ordered to leave his or her own home or business.
       (b) ""Public place'' means any place to which the public or a substantial group has access. The term includes, but is not limited to, public ways, sidewalks, schools, hospitals, government offices or facilities, and the lobbies or hallways of apartment buildings, dormitories, hotels or motels.
    VI. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by any person to desist; otherwise, it is a violation.

[BillKauffman]

Seems very simple to me...

They are going to argue these material facts:

1. you were in a "public place'' - any place to which the public or a substantial group has access including government offices or facilities.

2. you were "disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility" by not removing your hat when requested.

It all hinges on whether or not being asked to remove your hat while in a government facility is a:

a. should (not doing so is impolite)
b. ought (not doing so is immoral)
c. must (not doing so is against the rules)

[neggy]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/26/metro-approves-350000-settlement-cap-beard-case/

claim religious faith...

[K. Darien Freeheart]

My opinion is that getting the court people to see the absurdity of that they did is key.

Were it me, I'd not try to "beat" the charge. I'd just go in and address the Judge directly with things like "Do you see how absurd it is that they used physical violence against me for a hat?"

I think the whole court thing isn't even worth fighting. They're going to do what they want to do anyway, and they have shown their propensity to strong arm people. More than being defiant, I'd want to get across a message that he's holding the gun there, and that it's his choice to pull the trigger.

YMMV.

[Coconut]

...
2. you were "disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility" by not removing your hat when requested.
...

hmmm... no.

A piece of clothing cannot be disruprtive. Unless it's got a speaker on it that's playing rock music.

[jzacker]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/26/metro-approves-350000-settlement-cap-beard-case/

claim religious faith...

Jesse is not an orthodox jew, he can't claim religious faith.  And, quite frankly, it's insulting to jews to use their faith as an excuse.

[FTL_Ian]

Who cares what the name of the religion is?  Why can't my god tell me I only obey myself, and not some woman in a robe and her armed thugs?

[BillKauffman]

...
2. you were "disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility" by not removing your hat when requested.
...

A piece of clothing cannot be disruprtive. Unless it's got a speaker on it that's playing rock music.

Refusing to comply with a request is considered. The salient question then is - was this request:

a. a should
b. an ought
c. you must

If it is a "must", then there has to be a rule against it to be arrested for violating a lawful request.
If it is an "ought", then keeping it on is immoral behavior in the minds of who made the request.
If it is a "suggest", then keeping it on is rude behavior in the minds of who made the request.

Immoral and rude behavior, though distasteful to some is not punishable with force.

[Peacemaker]

I think using comedy is a great weapon and it makes me laugh when I think of everyone showing up in Judge's robes.  A person in a robe, passing judgement on a person in a robe.

[Kat Kanning]

Who cares what the name of the religion is?  Why can't my god tell me I only obey myself, and not some woman in a robe and her armed thugs?

Because you don't believe in god?  Why can't you guys be honest?  Just say, 'I don't believe in bowing down to tyrants.' or some such thing.

[FTL_Ian]

While at one time, I was an atheist, I'm now a pantheist, meaning I believe we're all god.

[neggy]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/26/metro-approves-350000-settlement-cap-beard-case/

claim religious faith...

Jesse is not an orthodox jew, he can't claim religious faith.  And, quite frankly, it's insulting to jews to use their faith as an excuse.

I didn't mean to imply that he should adopt a faith for the purpose of the trial. There are several religions that require head wear. Rasatfarians have won key legal cases in recent years.

I would argue to the court that the court officers had no right, nor does the court, to question a persons clothing. If someone is wearing a hat, and it is for personal reasons, they have a right to that.

The court officers do not have the legal or moral right to question the purpose of a hat.
If it was for medical reasons would they be allowed to ask for a doctors note? I think not or the lawsuits under the A.D.A. would be stunning.  If it is for religious reasons would they require you to prove your faith? I doubt it. If someone was conducting themselves in a civil manner how is what they wear disruptive? How about the wearer of the hat was cold? Do we not have a God given right to wear clothing to keep warm? 

There is a District Court Judge I have had to appear in front of in another state, that is known far and wide for the dress code in his court room.

I will never forget I was in front of him, with my attorney arguing a motion when he stopped my lawyer's argument in mid sentence, and chastised a young man who was not dressed as the Judge would have liked.  All I could think of was how irate the Judge was and how it was not a good time to have a pissed off Judge.  Luckily the Judge wasn't too pissed off, he wasn't very happy, and I got my way, not without him expressing his displeasure. I dodged the bullet that day, but I make sure when I have to appear in his court I dress the part.

[AnarchoJesse]

Who cares what the name of the religion is?  Why can't my god tell me I only obey myself, and not some woman in a robe and her armed thugs?

Because you don't believe in god?  Why can't you guys be honest?  Just say, 'I don't believe in bowing down to tyrants.' or some such thing.

I don't believe in a god, you're right, but I do believe in a higher ideal-- Liberty. Unless the judge feels like presiding a case that argues the merits of my beliefs in comparison to other beliefs, this entire method is a dead end.

[Giggan]

I like the idea of dressing incredibly formally with a hat, or dressing down a ton, with or without a hat.

Bathrobe, slippers, purple sweatpants...you don't need to wear a hat to show you don't care how you look to them.

[David]

I would suggest trying to figure out what is important, to you, then decide based on that.  Initially you wore the hat because you got tired of being pushed around, (that sentiment started a certain well known bus boycott) do you still feel that way? 
What goal do you have, and given the options you are considering, can any of your goals be met.  If you mock the court, or challenge the issue directly on principle, do you believe that either will work to some degree or other towards any goal or principle that you have. 

Frequently activists aim the 'make a statement'.  But I am in favor of smaller but more concrete goals.  For example, one of my aims is to increase their costs of enforcement.  Based on that aim, I do not answer most of their questions, I will challenge every ticket, and I will not cooperate fully upon arrest.  I encourage others, particularly friends that will likely never buck the system, to do some of the easier stuff like not answering, and challenging tickets.