Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (2026)
Disorderly conduct
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
947.01(1)(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
947.01(2)(2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried.
947.01 AnnotationThe defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct when the defendant appeared on a stage wearing a minimum of clothing intending to and succeeding in causing a loud reaction in the audience. State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).
947.01 AnnotationAn attorney was properly convicted under this section for refusing to leave a ward in a mental hospital until he had seen a client after having made statements in the presence of patients that caused some to become agitated. State v. Elson, 60 Wis. 2d 54, 208 N.W.2d 363 (1973).
947.01 AnnotationIt was not disorderly conduct for four people to enter an office with other members of the public for the purpose of protesting the draft and to refuse to leave on orders of the police when their conduct was not otherwise disturbing. State v. Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d 668, 211 N.W.2d 437 (1973).
947.01 AnnotationThis statute does not require a victim, but, when the disorderly conduct is directed at a person, that person is the victim for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrator for intimidating a victim under s. 940.44. State v. Vinje, 201 Wis. 2d 98, 548 N.W.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1484.
947.01 AnnotationA “true threat” is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99-1924. But see Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 216 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2023).
947.01 AnnotationPurely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected “abusive” conduct. “Abusive” conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. “True threats” clearly fall within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.
947.01 AnnotationApplication of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99-2317.
947.01 AnnotationDisorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. This section encompasses conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that is personal or private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that the disturbance or disruption will spill over and disrupt the peace, order, or safety of the surrounding community as well. Sending repeated, unwelcome, and anonymous mailings was “otherwise disorderly conduct.” State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666, 99-3204.
947.01 AnnotationDefiance of a police officer’s order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful. Braun v. Baldwin, 346 F.3d 761 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 194
cases (56 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: State v. Ginger M. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100 (Wis. 2017).
State v. Ginger M. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100 (Wis. 2017). “21 (1)(2013-14)2 and disorderly conduct under Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (1). 1 The Honorable Rebecca F.”
State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47 (Wis. 2001). “Based on this finding, the court adjudicated Douglas delinquent for violating the disorderly conduct statute, Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (1997-98). [1] ¶ 2. Douglas now petitions this court to reverse the court of appeals decision, which affirmed his delinquency adjudication.”
State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55 (Wis. 2002). “" Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (2) (1955). This change, argues Schwebke, shows that the legislature did not believe that annoying telephone calls were already covered by the general definition of "otherwise disorderly conduct.”
Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2022 WI 31 (Wis. 2022). “When Doubek was convicted, disorderly conduct was defined 2 at Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (1991-92). The crime has since been renumbered to Wis.”
State v. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50 (Wis. 2009). “However, following Ferguson's agitated conduct toward her nephew, the officers entered the apartment without a warrant and arrested Ferguson for misdemeanor disorderly conduct pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 947.01 . [4] When the officers *191 handcuffed Ferguson, she tried to pull her…”
City of Oak Creek v. King, 436 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1989). “9:947:01, adopting sec. 947.01, Stats., which provides: 947.”
State v. Anderson, 2002 WI 7 (Wis. 2002). “Anderson seeks review of an unpublished court of appeals decision *590 affirming his conviction for disorderly conduct, [1] contrary to Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (1997-98). [2] Anderson contends that his jury trial waiver was both statutorily and constitutionally inadequate because…”
State v. Sullivan, 576 N.W.2d 30 (Wis. 1998). “The defendant was also charged with disorderly conduct contrary to Wis. Stat. § 947.01 . [4] Although the complainant's claim of accident was specifically directed at the battery charge, the proffered other acts evidence is relevant to the defendant's intent as well as absence…”
Bd. of Regents - UW Sys. v. Jeffrey S. Decker, 2014 WI 68 (Wis. 2014). “14 Decker was charged with Disorderly Conduct under Wis. Stat. § 947.01 ,15 and he pled no contest on January 9, 2012.”
United States v. Andre Williams, 731 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2013). “Wis. Stat. §947.01 (2010). In 2011, as part of a comprehensive rewrite of firearm laws in Act 35, Wisconsin added the follow- ing paragraph to the disorderly conduct statute to protect the rights to possess and carry firearms openly in public: 2 (.”
Gonzalez v. Vill. of West Milwaukee, 671 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2012). “” Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (2); see Wis. Act 35, 2011- 2012 Wis.”
Roric Gibbs v. Brooke Lomas, 755 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2014). “She took the view that, despite a recent statutory amendment that exempts (in the absence of “other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent”) “loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm” from the category of citable disorderly conduct, see Wis.…”
— Wis. Stat. § 947.01(1) — 37 cases
State v. Ginger M. Breitzman, 2017 WI 100 (Wis. 2017). “21 (1)(2013-14)2 and disorderly conduct under Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (1). 1 The Honorable Rebecca F.”
Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2022 WI 31 (Wis. 2022). “When Doubek was convicted, disorderly conduct was defined 2 at Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (1991-92). The crime has since been renumbered to Wis.”
City of Oak Creek v. King, 436 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1989). “9:947:01, adopting sec. 947.01, Stats., which provides: 947.”
Pederson v. Breier, 327 F. Supp. 1382 (E.D. Wis. 1971).
Bd. of Regents - UW Sys. v. Jeffrey S. Decker, 2014 WI 68 (Wis. 2014). “14 Decker was charged with Disorderly Conduct under Wis. Stat. § 947.01 ,15 and he pled no contest on January 9, 2012.”
— Wis. Stat. § 947.01(2) — 2 cases
State v. Dronso, 279 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).
Pierner-Lytge v. Hobbs (E.D. Wis. 2022).
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.