Also known as: peaces · breach of the peace · public peace
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A state of public tranquility. Freedom from civil disturbance or hostility supplies the baseline condition against which statutes and common-law rules measure offenses such as breach of the peace.
A condition free from active war or armed conflict. The Constitution uses the phrase to limit state military activities and soldier quartering during periods when hostilities have ended.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A state of public tranquility. Freedom from civil disturbance or hostility supplies the baseline condition against which statutes and common-law rules measure offenses such as breach of the peace.
Portia Price burned a small American flag on a public sidewalk during a political demonstration. No onlookers reacted with violence or disorder. Because the conduct produced no breach of the peace, the statute punishing flag desecration could not be applied to her expressive act.
Pedro Pacheco offered cash to Phuong Pham if she would punch a rival critic at a crowded festival entrance. The proposed assault would have disturbed public order. The offer therefore constituted common-law solicitation to engage in conduct that would breach the peace.
A condition free from active war or armed conflict. The Constitution uses the phrase to limit state military activities and soldier quartering during periods when hostilities have ended.
State A stationed a permanent military unit near its border without obtaining congressional consent. The placement occurred long after any active conflict had ended. The action violated the constitutional prohibition on keeping troops in time of peace without congressional approval.
Penelope Price refused to house federal troops in her home once active combat had ceased. The Third Amendment forbids quartering soldiers in any house in time of peace without the owner's consent. The refusal therefore rested on a recognized constitutional protection.
Pavel Petrov shoved a uniformed officer who was attempting an arrest that Petrov knew to be unlawful. The officer was acting as a peace officer. Under the Model Penal Code the use of force to resist that arrest was not justifiable.
Pilar Pena argued that a prior judicial settlement had produced a stable resolution comparable to a lasting peace. The opinion rejected that characterization because the underlying controversy continued to generate litigation. The reference illustrated how the concept of peace can be invoked to describe the finality of legal arrangements.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View case4 common questions
A breach of the peace is a public offense committed by violence or one that causes or is likely to cause an immediate disturbance of public order. Courts examine whether the acts tend to provoke violence or disrupt tranquility in the presence of others.
A peace officer is a person designated by public authority whose duty is to keep the peace and arrest persons guilty or suspected of crime. The designation supplies the authority to perform arrests and maintain order.
The Model Penal Code provides that force is not justifiable to resist an arrest the actor knows is being made by a peace officer even if the arrest is unlawful. The rule channels disputes about the validity of an arrest into judicial rather than physical channels.
Flag burning as political expression is protected unless the government can show an imminent breach of the peace or another compelling non-speech interest. A statute aimed at the communicative impact of the act therefore cannot stand.
1 common questions
Article I Section 10 prohibits a state from keeping troops or ships of war in time of peace without the consent of Congress. The restriction prevents states from maintaining independent armed forces during periods of national tranquility.
…is the proper remedy to compel a Secretary of State to deliver a commission to which the party is entitled. A justice of the peace in the District of Columbia is not removable at the will of the President. At the last term, viz. December term, 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William…