D.C. Circuit
Patterson v. United States, 999 F. Supp. 2d 300, 315 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Given the clearly established law that governs free speech and permissible arrests for disorderly conduct, and also taking the facts alleged in Patterson’s complaint as true and drawing all inferences in Patterson’s favor, . . . no reasonable officer could conclude that Patterson’s conduct was likely to produce violence or otherwise cause a breach of the peace, as required to justify either punishing his speech under the First Amendment or arresting him for disorderly conduct.”).
First Circuit
Cocroft v. Smith, 95 F. Supp. 3d 119, 126 (D. Mass. 2015) (“Even crediting Officer Smith’s version of events, Cocroft’s conduct falls far short of actions which would constitute disorderly conduct under Massachusetts law.”).
Eighth Circuit
Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 478-79 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The state of the law at the time of the arrests was clearly established such that a reasonable person would have known there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for engaging in protected expressive conduct under the disorderly conduct statute.”).