(a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who does any of the following:
(1) Engages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence.
(2) Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.
(3) Takes possession of, exercises control over, or seizes any building or facility of any public or private educational institution without the specific authority of the chief administrative officer of the institution, or his authorized representative.
(4) Refuses to vacate any building or facility of any public or private educational institution in obedience to any of the following:
a. An order of the chief administrative officer of the institution, or the officer's representative, who shall include for colleges and universities the vice chancellor for student affairs or the vice-chancellor's equivalent for the institution, the dean of students or the dean's equivalent for the institution, the director of the law enforcement or security department for the institution, and the chief of the law enforcement or security department for the institution.
b. An order given by any fireman or public health officer acting within the scope of the fireman's or officer's authority.
c. If an emergency is occurring or is imminent within the institution, an order given by any law-enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer's authority.
(5) Shall, after being forbidden to do so by the chief administrative officer, or the officer's authorized representative, of any public or private educational institution:
a. Engage in any sitting, kneeling, lying down, or inclining so as to obstruct the ingress or egress of any person entitled to the use of any building or facility of the institution in its normal and intended use; or
b. Congregate, assemble, form groups or formations (whether organized or not), block, or in any manner otherwise interfere with the operation or functioning of any building or facility of the institution so as to interfere with the customary or normal use of the building or facility.
(6) Disrupts, disturbs or interferes with the teaching of students at any public or private educational institution or engages in conduct which disturbs the peace, order or discipline at any public or private educational institution or on the grounds adjacent thereto.
(6a) Engages in conduct which disturbs the peace, order, or discipline on any public school bus or public school activity bus.
(7) Except as provided in subdivision (8) of this subsection, disrupts, disturbs, or interferes with a religious service or assembly or engages in conduct which disturbs the peace or order at any religious service or assembly.
(8) Engages in conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the orderly administration of any funeral, memorial service, or family processional to the funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral, service, or family processional, or with the normal activities and functions occurring in the facilities or buildings where a funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral or memorial service, is taking place. Any of the following conduct that occurs within two hours preceding, during, or within two hours after a funeral or memorial service shall constitute disorderly conduct under this subdivision:
a. Displaying, within 500 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, any visual image that conveys fighting words or actual or imminent threats of harm directed to any person or property associated with the funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
b. Uttering, within 500 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial service, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, loud, threatening, or abusive language or singing, chanting, whistling, or yelling with or without noise amplification in a manner that would tend to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with a funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
c. Attempting to block or blocking pedestrian or vehicular access to the ceremonial site or location being used for a funeral or memorial.
As used in this section the term "building or facility" includes the surrounding grounds and premises of any building or facility used in connection with the operation or functioning of such building or facility.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any person who willfully engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(c) A person who commits a violation of subdivision (8) of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of:
(1) A Class 1 misdemeanor for a first offense.
(2) A Class I felony for a second offense.
(3) A Class H felony for a third or subsequent offense. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1971, c. 668, s. 1; 1973, c. 1347; 1975, c. 19, s. 4; 1983, c. 39, s. 5; 1987, c. 671, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 189; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001-26, s. 2; 2006-169, s. 1; 2012-12, s. 2(b); 2013-6, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
57
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
In re T.T.E., 831 S.E.2d 293 (N.C. 2019).
In re T.T.E., 831 S.E.2d 293 (N.C. 2019).
· cites it 89× “[e]ngages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence[,]” and the petition lists the offense as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 , I would hold that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the petition averred the…”
In re: T.T.E., 818 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 71× ““conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(1). There was no evidence that the juvenile was “fighting” with anyone, so the only question before this Court is whether there was evidence of “other violent conduct or .”
Matter of Eller, 417 S.E.2d 479 (N.C. 1992).
· cites it 36× “§ 7A-517(12) in that the radiator and the nail incidents amounted to disorderly conduct within an educational institution in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-288.4(a)(6). Respondent Eller was alleged to be a delinquent by virtue of her engaging in the radiator incident alone.”
In Re Brown, 562 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 17× “Respondent Christopher Brown was adjudicated delinquent on 8 August 2000 upon a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(6), prohibiting disorderly conduct involving schools, at the 8 August 2000 Session of New Hanover County District Court.”
Cranford v. Kluttz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 848 (M.D.N.C. 2017).
· cites it 39× “The second dispute relates to the legal effect of Plaintiffs conviction in state district court of the offense of Disorderly Conduct in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 ; the conviction was followed by an acquittal of that offense in state superior court.”
A.M. Ex Rel. F.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “13 (1); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-288.4 (a)(6). 49 probable cause to arrest F.”
Matter of Grubb, 405 S.E.2d 797 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 16× “In this case, respondent was charged with a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(6) (1990), which provides: *454 (a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who: (6) Disrupts, disturbs or interferes with the teaching of students at…”
In re: T.K., 800 S.E.2d 463 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 21× “hallway” -- the lower court seemingly adjudicated Thomas based only on conduct which occurred after the altercation, his “cussing,” because there was no evidence Thomas used “profanity” or engaged in “cussing” before the physical altercation as the petition alleged.”
In Re Pineault, 566 S.E.2d 854 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “§ 14-127 (2001), prohibiting injury to real property, and two counts of disorderly conduct in school pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(6) (2001).”
In re J.D.B., 686 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Additionally, amici argue that refusal to follow an order given by a school official can ultimately lead to criminal charges under N.C.G.S. § 14-288.4, which provides that a person who willfully engages in disorderly conduct by “[d]isrupt[ing], disturbing] or interfering] with…”
State v. Clark, 206 S.E.2d 252 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 15× “sworn, complains and says that at and in the County named above and on or about the 16th day of May, 1973, the defendant named above did unlawfully, wilfully, fail and refuse to disperse when commanded to do so by a law enforcement officer responsible for keeping the peace, to…”
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842 (M.D.N.C. 1971).
· cites it 29× “(B) Disorderly Conduct North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.4 defines “disorderly conduct” in several ways.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(1) — 2 cases
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842 (M.D.N.C. 1971).
“(B) Disorderly Conduct North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.4 defines “disorderly conduct” in several ways.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(2) — 3 cases
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842 (M.D.N.C. 1971).
“(B) Disorderly Conduct North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.4 defines “disorderly conduct” in several ways.”
Cranford v. Kluttz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 848 (M.D.N.C. 2017).
“The second dispute relates to the legal effect of Plaintiffs conviction in state district court of the offense of Disorderly Conduct in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 ; the conviction was followed by an acquittal of that offense in state superior court.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(3) — 1 case
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842 (M.D.N.C. 1971).
“(B) Disorderly Conduct North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.4 defines “disorderly conduct” in several ways.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(4) — 1 case
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842 (M.D.N.C. 1971).
“(B) Disorderly Conduct North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.4 defines “disorderly conduct” in several ways.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(5) — 1 case
Fuller v. Scott, 328 F. Supp. 842 (M.D.N.C. 1971).
“(B) Disorderly Conduct North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.4 defines “disorderly conduct” in several ways.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a) — 8 cases
In re T.T.E., 831 S.E.2d 293 (N.C. 2019).
“[e]ngages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence[,]” and the petition lists the offense as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 , I would hold that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the petition averred the…”
In re: T.T.E., 818 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
““conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(1). There was no evidence that the juvenile was “fighting” with anyone, so the only question before this Court is whether there was evidence of “other violent conduct or .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(1) — 2 cases
In re T.T.E., 831 S.E.2d 293 (N.C. 2019).
“[e]ngages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence[,]” and the petition lists the offense as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 , I would hold that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the petition averred the…”
In re: T.T.E., 818 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
““conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(1). There was no evidence that the juvenile was “fighting” with anyone, so the only question before this Court is whether there was evidence of “other violent conduct or .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(2) — 9 cases
Cranford v. Kluttz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 848 (M.D.N.C. 2017).
“The second dispute relates to the legal effect of Plaintiffs conviction in state district court of the offense of Disorderly Conduct in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 ; the conviction was followed by an acquittal of that offense in state superior court.”
In re: T.T.E., 818 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
““conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(1). There was no evidence that the juvenile was “fighting” with anyone, so the only question before this Court is whether there was evidence of “other violent conduct or .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(4) — 1 case
In re: T.T.E., 818 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
““conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(1). There was no evidence that the juvenile was “fighting” with anyone, so the only question before this Court is whether there was evidence of “other violent conduct or .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(6) — 19 cases
Matter of Eller, 417 S.E.2d 479 (N.C. 1992).
“§ 7A-517(12) in that the radiator and the nail incidents amounted to disorderly conduct within an educational institution in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-288.4(a)(6). Respondent Eller was alleged to be a delinquent by virtue of her engaging in the radiator incident alone.”
In Re Brown, 562 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
“Respondent Christopher Brown was adjudicated delinquent on 8 August 2000 upon a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(6), prohibiting disorderly conduct involving schools, at the 8 August 2000 Session of New Hanover County District Court.”
Matter of Grubb, 405 S.E.2d 797 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“In this case, respondent was charged with a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 (a)(6) (1990), which provides: *454 (a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance intentionally caused by any person who: (6) Disrupts, disturbs or interferes with the teaching of students at…”
In re: T.K., 800 S.E.2d 463 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
“hallway” -- the lower court seemingly adjudicated Thomas based only on conduct which occurred after the altercation, his “cussing,” because there was no evidence Thomas used “profanity” or engaged in “cussing” before the physical altercation as the petition alleged.”
In re T.T.E., 831 S.E.2d 293 (N.C. 2019).
“[e]ngages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or other violence[,]” and the petition lists the offense as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4 , I would hold that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the petition averred the…”
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.