N.M. Stat. § 30-20-1 (2026)

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.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

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.