Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court held that a defendant's graphic questions about school shootings and security during a call to a private school constituted a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, affirming his disorderly conduct conviction under 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(1). Applying *People v. Ashley*, the court found the speech was objectively threatening, the defendant was subjectively aware of its nature, and the listener reasonably perceived a threat. The dissent argued the speech lacked a serious expression of intent to commit violence and was merely a troubling inquiry, warning the majority diluted the true threats exception.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendant's speech was protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the disorderly conduct conviction.
Holdings
- Defendant's speech constituted a true threat and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment.
- The evidence was sufficient because a rational trier of fact could find that defendant knowingly engaged in unreasonable conduct that alarmed another and provoked a breach of the peace.
Key quotations
“‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” (¶25)
“We find that his speech constituted a true threat unprotected by the first amendment.” (¶32)
“We find that a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense of disorderly conduct.” (¶40)
Factual background
Defendant Rory Swenson called Keith Country Day School, a private school, to inquire about enrolling his son. During the call, he asked numerous questions about school security, mass shootings, and gun violence, including hypotheticals about shootings and violence at the school. The conversation alarmed the advancement director, Monica Krysztopa, who initiated a soft lockdown and police response. Defendant was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. At trial, the court found Krysztopa more credible and convicted defendant of disorderly conduct, finding that his speech was unreasonable and alarming.
Procedural history
Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in the circuit court of Winnebago County. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.