Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7 (2026)

Disorderly conduct; failure to comply with requests or commands of law enforcement officers; penalties; exception

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Codes, 1942, § 2087.9; Laws, 1964, ch. 336, §§ 1-4; Laws, 2006, ch. 520, § 7, eff. 4/3/2006.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Sendelweck v. State, 101 So. 3d 734 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
Sendelweck v. State, 101 So. 3d 734 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “” The charging affidavit reflects that Sendelweck, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-35-7(1) (Rev. 2006), “did willfully and unlawfully refuse to comply with the request of [Sergeant] Parfait, a law enforcement officer, who had the authority to then and there…”
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999). · cites it 2× “715 (1998); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7 (1) (1994); Mo.”
Mease v. State, 539 So. 2d 1324 (Miss. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 97-9-73 (1972), to disorderly conduct, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7 (3) (1972), to carrying a concealed weapon, Miss.”
Qualls v. State, 947 So. 2d 365 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7 (Rev.2006). The fact that the officer only saw one individual in the vehicle initially, when two men were seen running in the neighborhood, does not lessen the officer's reasonable suspicion.”
Titus v. Williams, 844 So. 2d 459 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 97-35-15), and refusing to obey a police order (Miss.Code Ann. § 97-35-7). Thus, they argue that the town is exempted from any possible liability to Titus because of his criminal activity.”
McCoy v. City of Florence, 949 So. 2d 69 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “" According to Section 97-35-7(1)(i): [w]hoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under such circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace, fails or refuses to promptly comply with or obey a request, command, or order of a law enforcement officer, having the…”
Mastin v. State, 180 So. 3d 732 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Whether Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-35-7(1)® (Rev.2014), 1 as applied in this case, violates Mastin’s First Amendment right to free speech and is thus overly broad; III.”
Jones v. State, 798 So. 2d 1241 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 2× “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-35-7: Whoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under such circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace or which may cause or occasion a breach of peace, fails or refuses to promptly comply with or obey a request, command, or order…”
Gregory Brooks v. City of West Point Mississippi, 639 F. App'x 986 (5th Cir. 2016). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-35-7(1) (2006). Thus, to convict a person of violating subsection (i) of Mississippi’s disorderly conduct statute the state must prove that the accused failed to comply with an officer’s command, order, or request to act, or not to act, as instructed, while…”
James Christopher Skinner v. State of Mississippi, 270 So. 3d 1046 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7 (1)(i). Miss. Code Ann.”
Campbell v. City of Indianola, 117 F. Supp. 3d 854 (N.D. Miss. 2015). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs do not dispute that Hagerman had a reasonable belief that Demetrius, at the time of the grabbing, had committed the crime of disorderly conduct; See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-35-7, 18 However, it is clear that failure to comply with .”
The Univ. of Mississippi Med. Ctr. v. Enoch Oliver, 235 So. 3d 75 (Miss. 2017). “See Miss, Code Ann, § 97-35-7 (Rev. 2014) (disorderly conduct); Miss.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(1) — 21 cases
Sendelweck v. State, 101 So. 3d 734 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” The charging affidavit reflects that Sendelweck, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-35-7(1) (Rev. 2006), “did willfully and unlawfully refuse to comply with the request of [Sergeant] Parfait, a law enforcement officer, who had the authority to then and there…”
Gregory Brooks v. City of West Point Mississippi, 639 F. App'x 986 (5th Cir. 2016). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-35-7(1) (2006). Thus, to convict a person of violating subsection (i) of Mississippi’s disorderly conduct statute the state must prove that the accused failed to comply with an officer’s command, order, or request to act, or not to act, as instructed, while…”
Mark Matthews v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 So. 3d 579 (Miss. 2014).
Mastin v. State, 180 So. 3d 732 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “Whether Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-35-7(1)® (Rev.2014), 1 as applied in this case, violates Mastin’s First Amendment right to free speech and is thus overly broad; III.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(1)(a) — 1 case
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(1)(i) — 3 cases
McCoy v. City of Florence, 949 So. 2d 69 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “" According to Section 97-35-7(1)(i): [w]hoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under such circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace, fails or refuses to promptly comply with or obey a request, command, or order of a law enforcement officer, having the…”
Woods v. Berryhill (N.D. Miss. 2024).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(2) — 1 case
McCoy v. City of Florence, 949 So. 2d 69 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “" According to Section 97-35-7(1)(i): [w]hoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under such circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace, fails or refuses to promptly comply with or obey a request, command, or order of a law enforcement officer, having the…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(l)(a) — 1 case
Sendelweck v. State, 101 So. 3d 734 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” The charging affidavit reflects that Sendelweck, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-35-7(1) (Rev. 2006), “did willfully and unlawfully refuse to comply with the request of [Sergeant] Parfait, a law enforcement officer, who had the authority to then and there…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(l)(i) — 1 case
Mastin v. State, 180 So. 3d 732 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “Whether Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-35-7(1)® (Rev.2014), 1 as applied in this case, violates Mastin’s First Amendment right to free speech and is thus overly broad; III.”
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.