“Hat Wearers” Found Guilty of Disorderly Conduct

Jesse in CourtJesse, recently arrested in the Milford courtroom for refusing to remove his hat, and Charlie, arrested for asking about the hat rule in the courtroom lobby, were both found guilty on Wednesday of disorderly conduct. However, no punishment was required because they were both sentenced to “time served”, which would be the 4 hours they were held on the day they were arrested.

Jesse, apparently not wishing further conflict with courtroom dress codes, wore a suit to trial and followed the court’s desired procedure throughout. Charlie, while following procedure, also went with questions to ask of the court and officers.

More information can be found from this article

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. No suprise they have been found guilty.

  2. Does the "No Hat" rule apply only to males? If so, the rule discriminates on the basis of gender.

  3. Don't know about that,

    but the police walked into the courtroom with their hats on…

  4. I must wear a hat at all times for health reasons. When I do not wear a hat, I catch cold or bronchitis. Public institutions are supposed to make reasonable accomodation for disabilities.

  5. I have religious objections to taking off my hat. I only take off my hat when God is present. The judge, however much he may like to think he is, is not God. Public institutions are required to make reasonable accomodation for religious practices.

  6. "Disorderly conduct" statues are created under the "police power of the State" which is the power to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the public. My hat does not harm any of the above, therefore the statute, as applied, is not a valid exercise of the police power.

  7. Fred…get reall. The "disorderly " behavior comes when you object strongly when "commanded" to remove your hat.

    The idea that hat removal in a public place is a sign of respect. That seems to be lost on you people that seem to think you do not have to show respect by removing your hat. Ladies have never been subject to the remove your hat rule.

    You dim wits think it is a law or something else but it is a social norm that you, for whatever reason, have characterized as a tool of your oppression imposed by your oppressors.

    How sad that it is that you hat wearing people that are using this issue to "defy da man" . You don't realize that you are painting yourselves as loonies.

    You are just painting a target on your back for no good reason. In the end hat wearing is a non issue becasue it does not make a difference.

    If you want to have liberty and freedom, it comes with responsibility. It seems irresponsible to antagonize the man with the gun and the handcuffs over wearing a hat.

    The disorderly conduct comes when you decide that you want to challenge the man to do something about your conduct.

    The medical reason might have merit with a Doctors note, the religous reason might have merit in conjunction with a specific religion.

    I suspect they are thinnly vailed arguments to antagonize the police and meant to foster an exchange of words that will lead to something called disorderly conduct.

    I also agree with the premise that they think they are g*ds and untouchable and above the law and abuse that position to cause grief to people that are exhibiting criminal behavior.

    I had a cop threaten me with the bullshit charge of disorderly conduct and trespass, in a police station while I was trying to secure a police report to submit said report to an insurance company in support or a claim of property damage. I objected to the 5.00 charge for the report.

  8. GeoFalon,

    You are correct. I do not think I MUST show respect in a public place. To not show respect cannot be made a crime. If it is, then this country is no better than any other that forces it's citizens to bow before a king or be thrown into the furnace.

    A restaurant can kick me out if my hat is offensive to them or their customers, but a courtroom is a public area.

  9. You miss the point. It is not the hat wearing that is disorderly, it is the engaginment with the police officer that becomes the problem.

    Anytime you engage the police office, you are in danger of being arressted. The majority of the people agee that the removing of a hat in a public place is proper decorum.

    The paid public dervants get to decide what proper decorum is in the space they have care custody and control of.

    Walk away without disyssing the hat. Since the order to remove the hat is not a lawful order that has no basis in law.

  10. Late night, lady at home alone when door is broken in…

    retreats to bedroom, scared to death, tasered repeatly by

    the unannounced home invaders, who turned out to be jack booted thugs (cops) mistakenly in the wrong place.

    Of course she was charged with resisting arrest…and the

    subsequent lawsuit went against her…

    Does not matter if it is a public place or your bedroom…

    It is the jack booted thugs with badges who have no respect…

    Wearing a hat is disrespectful? Says who…what law says so….Only the voice and opinion of the man with the badge and gun….or should I say the long black robe….

    Take the armed guard from the judges side and remove the metal detectors from the doorways…and the citizen will see the respect that he deserves…as a human…not a subservient because the "man" says so….

  11. Their system has disrespected us and continues to do so many times over each and every day. It is “owed” no respect in turn, just by default.

    That they have the power to punish those that disobey their vile edict is the point. My take on it that you should look for a loophole (i.e. religious grounds for this particular one) in any bad law, to make it so that it doesn’t apply to you, while tearing away at the very core of any legitimacy of those that create and enforce such nonsense in the first place.

    If there are those that object on religious grounds, have someone dressed as a priest, complete with vestments, “blessing” those that show up in the hallway outside the courtroom, before entering.

    I never read any laws saying that you can’t make fun of and have a good time, poking gaping holes in their power scheme.

    They erect the statues, free thinking human beings topple them. Lather, rinse repeat.


  12. If you just calmly say, "No," there is no disorderly conduct. If the officer employs force then he is the disorderly one. According to NH law:

    In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense [disorderly conduct], the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

    First: The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant involved himself (herself) in at least one of the following actions: he (she) either engaged in fighting or threatening, or engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose of the defendant’s;

    Second: The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions were reasonably likely to affect the public; and

    Third: The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience,

    annoyance or alarm.

  13. NH is not a commonwealth

Care to comment?