Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 502 (2026)

Failure to disperse

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. When 6 or more persons are participating in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, a law enforcement officer may order the participants and others in the immediate vicinity to disperse.

[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]

2. A person is guilty of failure to disperse if the person knowingly fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection 1 and:

A. The person is a participant in the course of disorderly conduct. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or [PL 2001, c. 383, §64 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

B. The person is in the immediate vicinity of the disorderly conduct. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime. [PL 2001, c. 383, §64 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

[PL 2001, c. 383, §64 (RPR); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

3.

[PL 2001, c. 383, §65 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 2001, c. 383, §§64,64 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2002 · leading case: Burbank v. Davis, 227 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D. Me. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burbank v. Davis, 227 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D. Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “With respect to the failure to disperse charge, subsection (1) of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 502 states, ‘When 6 or more people are participating in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, a law enforcement officer may…”

State v. Griatzky, 587 A.2d 234 (Me. 1991). · cites it 3× “Defendant Ellen Griatzky appeals from her convictions of failure to disperse, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 502 (1983), and disorderly conduct, 17-A M.”

State v. Anair, 499 A.2d 152 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 502 (1983) provides: 1. When 6 or more persons are participating in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, a law enforcement officer may order the participants and others in the immediate…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 502(1) — 1 case

State v. Griatzky, 587 A.2d 234 (Me. 1991). “Defendant Ellen Griatzky appeals from her convictions of failure to disperse, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 502 (1983), and disorderly conduct, 17-A M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 502(2) — 1 case

Burbank v. Davis, 227 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D. Me. 2002). “With respect to the failure to disperse charge, subsection (1) of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 502 states, ‘When 6 or more people are participating in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, a law enforcement officer may…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 502(3) — 1 case

State v. Anair, 499 A.2d 152 (Me. 1985). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 502 (1983) provides: 1. When 6 or more persons are participating in a course of disorderly conduct likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, a law enforcement officer may order the participants and others in the immediate…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.