Pennsylvania Superior Court Ruling: Commonwealth v. McConnell

Com. v. McConnell, J. No. 103 MDA 2020

Commonwealth v. McConnell addresses the charge of disorderly conduct and the balancing act between disorderly conduct and protected free speech.

This case began as a neighbor dispute between the Defendant and his backyard neighbor. His neighbor has a swimming pool with string lights and a motion sensor security light in his backyard. The defendant was apparently disturbed by his lights. He then obtained 8 construction grade lights and directed them into his neighbor’s backyard at 9pm. The lights were so bright that 9 neighbors called in to complain about the lights within 15 minutes of them being turned on. The defendant refused to turn them off even after police arrived. The lights were on for about two hours. The defendant was ultimately charged with disorderly conduct. He was convicted at trial and this case was appealed.

An individual commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof… he creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. While physically offensive condition is not explicitly defined, the court finds that the blindingly bright lights which disturbed the entire neighborhood fit the bill. The defendant argues that he cannot be convicted of disorderly conduct because his lights served the legitimate purpose of protesting the lack of a lighting ordinance in his neighborhood. Because there was no ordinance, the defendant was disturbed by his neighbor’s lights. The court has defined legitimate purpose as conduct which is lawfully and constitutionally protected. However, one cannot avoid the liability for disorderly conduct simply by claiming lawful purpose. The rights must be exercised in a reasonable manner. In this case, the defendant claims it is his first amendment right to protest. When a protected first amendment right to free speech is implicated, a disorderly conduct conviction will only stand when the actor intends to breach the public peace by exercising his right in an unreasonable manner. In this case, the court finds that the record is clear – the defendant intended to breach the public peace by casting an unreasonable amount of light in his neighborhood. He then persisted in keeping the floodlights lit even after being advised of the disturbance that he was causing. For that reason, the court concluded that his exercise of his right was unreasonable and therefore not a legitimate purpose for using his floodlights. He was entitled to no relief.