Swearing in front of children law

[someguy38]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

Hi. I'm hoping I can describe a situation a friend of mine is in, and get any words of advice. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.

I don't know every last particular in this situation. I've seen the citation before, and I can assure you this is really happening, though I can't remember the terminology used in the citation - and I'm not familiar with legal terminology anyway.

The person I'm describing received a citation along the lines of "profanity in front of children" in Idaho. His neighbor claimed that while he (the neighbor) was driving with his pre-teen son, my friend called him a "pussy". My friend was supposedly walking his dog at the time, and said it loud enough that it could be heard by the passengers in the car, with the windows down.

This wasn't classified as a disturbance of the peace, which is what I thought it would fall under. The key points of the citation were that there was a child present, and the actual word my friend supposedly used, which I would equate to a "swearing in front of children" offense of some sort.

Today he and his lawyer went to a hearing to try and get this charge dismissed, and it was dismissed. His lawyer argued that by constitutional rights, he could say such a word.

My friend is not admitting to having said this this word, so I guess his lawyer's argument was that even if he had said it, it wouldn't be illegal, making the question of whether or not he said it immaterial.

After this charge was dismissed, the DA decided to charge him with disturbing the peace, and the judge allowed this. He told me the DA said he was so adamant about pressing charges because there was a child involved in this (and those were the words of the DA).

I assume that because this happened in front of a judge, in a courtoom, with my friend's lawyer present that this is allowed by the legal process. But the obvious question is, why didn't the DA charge him with disturbing the peace in the first place? It would really appear to me that the DA is really grasping.

There were no witnesses to this event. It's my friend's word against his neighbor's. And my friend's neighbor has a history of calling the police on him after they got into a beef of some sort. I can give you one example, that according to my friend is documented. My friend was walking up the street carrying a wrench after helping someone with their vehicle. His neighbor called the police and said he was walking up the street pointing a gun at his house (mistaking the wrench for a gun). In this event, there were witnesses who confirmed that he was carrying a wrench, not a gun.

Also, where according to my friend his neighbor and the DA are trying to present this family as being very wholesome (which is why it's such a crime that my friend would have sworn in front of the child), there's a lot of evidence suggesting that they're not. We all know that most kids hear profanity on the television by the time they're ten or twelve, and I think it's ridiculous to the point of being inadmissable in court to claim that this child in particular hasn't been around a lot of swearing. He and his siblings have a history of juvenile offenses. And not too long ago my friend looked at his neighbor's "family myspace page" and saw that one of his friends had made the comment on his page that the next time he comes up to visit they're going to smoke pot.

I know that "BS" isn't a legal term, but assuming that what I'm hearing is true, there's so much BS that I think some of it would have to be identifiable by legal terms.

As a lawyer, is there anything about what I said, assuming that everything I said is true, that jumps out at you as sounding really off?

And would you think that a good lawyer in this position should be able to easily handle this?

Thanks again for your time.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Isis1]

because the crude word for vagina is a sexual term, to be referring to it while a child is present, is inappropriate. i'm actually curious for other senior replies. the DA was allowed to press the issue with another charge. which, i fully believe he should have done.

your friend really should take a look at himself and ask why he would talk about such matters in front of a child. if he has beef with the neighbor, treat it in an adult manner without children present.

 

[justalayman]

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 64
RIOT, ROUT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY,
PRIZE FIGHTING, DISTURBING PEACE
18-6409. DISTURBING THE PEACE. Every person who maliciously and wilfully
disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or
unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening,
traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or
pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence
or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.

a pussy is also a little cat which would not have the same physical capabilities as a full grown cat which could be dangerous. Therefore a pussy is in reference to a person incapable of causing harm to another.



in reality, I believe case law would be the deciding factor on the possibility of conviction and sorry, but I'm not looking any up for it.

and the 1st amend does not protect all speech.

 

[someguy38]

He's not claiming to have said this. He fervently denies having said it, and I mentioned that in my post. If you were to ask me if I think he'd say this, in front of a child or not, I'd say, no, I don't think he would. The reason I didn't talk more about whether or not I thought he was innocent was because I was trying to exclude my biases and opinions from my post and stick to (what I've been told are) the facts in this situation.

For the record, I don't believe for a second that he would do this. If I thought he'd done this I'd say "good for the DA!" And what I know of his neighbor is that he's a pretty shady guy who is definitely capable of falsely accusing someone of something as a way of getting back at them. For that matter, he has a record of calling the police on my friend for incidents that turned out to be nothing.

But once again, my opinion of my friend and his neighbor don't really matter, which is why I didn't share more of my opinion about either.

 

[justalayman]

in a sense, it doesn't really matter if he actually said it or not. If the DA believes he said it and he convinces a jury he said it, he said it for all practical purposes.

 

[someguy38]

a pussy is also a little cat which would not have the same physical capabilities as a full grown cat which could be dangerous. Therefore a pussy is in reference to a person incapable of causing harm to another.



in reality, I believe case law would be the deciding factor on the possibility of conviction and sorry, but I'm not looking any up for it.

and the 1st amend does not protect all speech.

So by this definition of disturbing the peace, the televisions of just about every family in Idaho disturb the peace. Except for the fact that they're not people. So you can swear in front of a child as long as you're not a person.

Would playing your television loud enough that other people could hear it, while people on it were swearing, count as disturbing the peace?

If so, you could be charged with a misdemeanor if you played it loud enough that your children could hear it, couldn't you? If not your children, how about someone else's children? What if it offended me that I let my child go to someone's house, and they let my child watch a movie with swearing? Could I charge them with disturbing the peace?

If not so, then I could record myself swearing profusely, burn it to a cd, and put it in the cd player in my car, with the windows rolled down, and play it a level loud enough that it could be heard by people who were walking by, but not so lound that it would be considered unreasonable, right? It wasn't me swearing; it was a machine, right?

 

[someguy38]

in a sense, it doesn't really matter if he actually said it or not. If the DA believes he said it and he convinces a jury he said it, he said it for all practical purposes.

What kind of precedent is this setting? I can accuse you of anything, and without witnesses or evidence, put you before a judge and jury in a situation where you will either be found innocent or guilty. Roll the dice or flip a coin and oh, it looks like it's my lucky day! That was one darn good DA who got the jury to agree with his opinion. And why did he have that opinion? And without evidence, could that be described as anything but his opinion?

That'll be one scary day when our legal system puts juries in a situation where they're forced to choose one of two opinions. Maybe we can just air it on tv and have people text in their votes?

We are talking about US law, aren't we?

 

[justalayman]

in a way you are right about the opinion over fact but in reality, unless there is a police witness to a crime or the facts are indisputable, people are often convicted on the statements of others.

that is one reason the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. It not only requires the prosecution to prove to the point that it is most reasonable to believe what he is selling, it also allows for the character of those testifying to be considered.

 

[someguy38]

If this case is taken to trial, here's what you're telling me:

If I don't like you, I can simply say that you said something to me, or yelled something at me. And I can take you to court, and have a chance at getting you convicted for something you didn't do. If I win, great! If not, well, it was worth a try, wasn't it?

Isn't that exactly what you're telling me?

 

[justalayman]

If this case is taken to trial, here's what you're telling me:

If I don't like you, I can simply say that you said something to me, or yelled something at me. And I can take you to court, and have a chance at getting you convicted for something you didn't do. If I win, great! If not, well, it was worth a try, wasn't it?

Isn't that exactly what you're telling me?

ya, pretty much.

except the DA prosecutes. You would have no choice concerning it actually being prosecuted. That is up to the DA. You would only be a witness.

 

[FlyingRon]

This reminds me of a Steve ****** joke that ends with "That cat was the best lay I ever had."