knew there was no physical altercation, but only a “verbal altercation,” is supported by sufficient competent evidence, and is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Nevertheless, the district court’s conclusion that arguing cannot violate criminal law is incorrect. [¶ 13] Disorderly conduct is proscribed by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-01(1), which provides, in part: 1. An individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person or in reckless disregard of the fact that another person is harassed, annoyed, or alarmed by the individual’s behavior, the individual: a. Engages in fighting, or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior; b. Makes unreasonable noise; c. In a public place, uses abusive or obscen P.2d 1347, 1354 (1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hayes, 138 N.H. 410, 640 A.2d 288,
holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation holding warrants check on passenger before officer inquired as to registered owner of suspected stolen car was unreasonable because officer had not formed reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant was engaged in any criminal activity holding officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity necessary to support traffic stop where officer received dispatch that defendant committed disorderly conduct and record check showed parked truck was registered to defendant holding traffic stop was legal where eyewitness told officer defendant kicked over parking sign and officer observed defendant yelling and gesturing in parking lot officer had at least reasonable grounds to suspect defendant of having committed disorderly conduct holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation