There's been plenty of chatter about the Goldberg case and what it meant as far as 4A/RAS/PC...but I would like to get some additional clarification regarding the BOP statute CGS 53a-181.
Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.
(b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.
It would seem to me that the most unfavorable reading of BOP (in favor of arrest) would be to argue that the OC'er
1. recklessly created a risk of inconvenience/annoyance/alarm; AND
2. created a public and hazardous/physically offensive condition by the act (OC); AND
3. did not have a license or privilege to OC
With a valid permit, BOP could not reasonably be charged...and there seems to be no reasonable way for officers to disagree, which makes the Goldberg case such an anomaly.
I hope I am not missing something.
Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.
(b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.
It would seem to me that the most unfavorable reading of BOP (in favor of arrest) would be to argue that the OC'er
1. recklessly created a risk of inconvenience/annoyance/alarm; AND
2. created a public and hazardous/physically offensive condition by the act (OC); AND
3. did not have a license or privilege to OC
With a valid permit, BOP could not reasonably be charged...and there seems to be no reasonable way for officers to disagree, which makes the Goldberg case such an anomaly.
I hope I am not missing something.