Dorothy Williams v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 317

Early morning police went to Dorothy Williams’s home to serve an arrest warrant for her brother; officers established a perimeter while seeking a search warrant.
Williams answered the door, denied her brother lived there, slammed the door, and later was stopped from reentering after escorting a niece to a car.
At the perimeter Williams loudly yelled, swore, declared she would go back in to check on her sick, disabled mother, and told neighbors to "look" at how police were treating her and her mother.
Neighbors came outside and multiple officers diverted attention from the tactical perimeter to engage Williams; officers warned her to quiet down and ultimately arrested her for disorderly conduct.
A jury acquitted Williams of assisting a criminal but convicted her of disorderly conduct (Class B misdemeanor); Williams appealed claiming her outburst was protected political speech under Article 1, § 9 of the Indiana Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams’ loud outburst constituted "political speech" protected by Art. 1, § 9	State: Speech was not political because it referred to private parties and Williams’ own conduct; thus arrest was permissible.	Williams: Her speech criticized police treatment of her and her elderly mother and so was unambiguously political expression.	Court: Speech was politically ambiguous (referenced herself and neighbors); Williams failed to meet burden to show unambiguous political speech.
If speech was political, whether the State’s impairment (arrest) was justified	State: Even if political, impairment permissible because speech interfered with officers and drew a crowd (abuse of right).	Williams: If political, the State must show the impairment was slight or the speech caused particularized private harms; she denied such abuse.	Court: Because speech was ambiguous, evaluated under rational-basis; evidence showed neighbors were drawn out and officers distracted, so impairment was rational and constitutional.

Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. 1996) (establishes two-step inquiry for expressive activity under Art. 1, § 9: whether state action restricted expression and whether that expression was an "abuse" of the right to speak).
Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. 1993) (recognizes abating excessive noise as legitimate state objective; statements defending one’s own conduct are not political speech).
Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 2011) (applies Whittington framework and confirms political-speech defense limitations for persons of investigative interest).
Dallaly v. State, 916 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holds political speech can be an abuse of right when it interferes with police function).
Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512 (Ind. 2015) (clarifies standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal).