Disorderly Conduct Statute For Disturbing Public Meeting Survives First Amendment Challenge

State v. Hensel, Minn.Ct.App., 1/25/2016.  Ms. Hensel went down to the Little Falls city council meeting.  She kept moving her chair into a kind of DMZ between the front of chairs and the dais where the council members sat.  The first time she did it the public works director moved it back, telling Ms. Hensel that her chair had to stay where it was.  The second time she moved her chair into the DMZ she and the police chief exchanged words, which soon included the city attorney and city council members.  Ms. Hensel offered to compromise by moving her chair part way back from the dais but still in the DMZ.  At that point the police chief removed her from the meeting.

The state charged Ms. Hensel with disorderly conduct for disturbing a public meeting, which is apparently a misdemeanor. She launched a First Amendment facial challenge to the statute, which required her to prove that there were no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid, that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep, or that a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional.  The court concluded that Ms. Hensel wasn't able to do that.  The court construes the statute to proscribe only the disturbance of lawful meetings, and only reaches conduct (including speech) that would both be expected to interfere with the ability to conduct a meeting and intended to interfere with that ability.