California Penal Code §416 — Failure to Disperse
PC §416 punishes any person who, being one of at least two persons assembled to disturb the public peace or commit any unlawful act, fails to disperse when directed to do so by a public officer. Straight misdemeanor: up to 6 months county jail and/or $1,000 fine. §416 requires (1) at least two people assembled, (2) an unlawful purpose or breach of peace, (3) an officer's lawful dispersal command, and (4) willful refusal to disperse. Video review of the officer's command and the defendant's response is central to defense.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Failure to Disperse Cases in All LA County Courts
On This Page
Jump to a Section
01 — Quick Facts
PC §416 — Failure to Disperse at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §416 — Failure to Disperse |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Misdemeanor |
| Max Penalty | 6 months county jail |
| Fine | Up to $1,000 |
| Strike | No |
| Prerequisite | Two+ people, lawful dispersal command |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §416?
What Is California Penal Code §416?
PC §416 Reads:
"If two or more persons assemble for the purpose of disturbing the public peace, or committing any unlawful act, and do not disperse on being desired or commanded so to do by a public officer, the persons so offending are severally guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
— California Penal Code §416(a)
PC §416 sits alongside §409 as the pair of statutes governing officer-directed dispersal. §416 focuses on the officer's command; §409 focuses on the §726 dispersal warning at a §407 unlawful assembly or §404 riot. §416 is broader — it reaches any assembly of two or more people with an unlawful purpose or peace-disturbing conduct, even without formal §726 procedures. Video review, audibility, opportunity-to-comply, and lawful-purpose analysis dominate defense litigation.
PC §416 vs. §409 vs. §407 vs. §148
§407 defines unlawful assembly. §409 punishes remaining at a §407 assembly after a §726 dispersal warning. §416 punishes failure to disperse when an officer commands two+ people gathered for an unlawful purpose to leave. §148 punishes resisting the officer generally. Charges frequently overlap; §416 often filed alongside §409 in mass-protest arrests.
PC §416 — Officer's Direct Command
At least two people, unlawful purpose, officer command, refusal to disperse.
PC §409 — §726 Warning at Unlawful Assembly
Remaining after formal §726 dispersal warning at riot or §407 assembly.
Why §416 Cases Turn on the Officer's Command
Unlike §409 (which requires a formal §726 dispersal order), §416 can be based on a peace officer's on-the-scene command. But the command must be clear, audible, and legally justified — the underlying gathering must have an actual unlawful purpose or be genuinely disturbing the peace. Officers overreach: dispersing lawful sidewalk gatherings, breaking up private social events on public streets, or ordering people to disperse when no unlawful purpose exists. Each is defense territory.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §416
To convict under PC §416 the People must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Two or More Persons Assembled
At least two people were assembled together. A single individual cannot violate §416.
Unlawful Purpose or Peace-Disturbing Conduct
The purpose was to disturb the peace or commit any unlawful act — a peaceful, lawful gathering does not qualify.
Officer's Lawful Command to Disperse
A public officer clearly commanded the assembly to disperse — audible and lawfully justified.
Willful Refusal to Disperse
The defendant willfully refused to leave — not by accident, entrapment, or officer-caused inability.
03 — Degrees
PC §416 — Tiers & Degrees
PC §416 is a straight misdemeanor. Related dispersal statutes handle formal §726 warnings and general officer resistance.
PC §416(a)
Standard filing for on-scene dispersal refusals.
PC §409
Formal §726 unlawful-assembly dispersal — companion charge.
PC §148(a)(1)
General resisting arrest — often stacked with §416.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §416 Failure to Disperse in California
PC §416 exposure and commonly stacked charges.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to Disperse | PC §416(a) | Up to 6 months county jail | Available | No |
| Remaining After Warning | PC §409 | Up to 6 months county jail | Available | No |
| Unlawful Assembly Participation | PC §408 | Up to 6 months county jail | Available | No |
| Resisting Arrest | PC §148(a)(1) | Up to 1 year county jail | Available | No |
Aggravating Companion Charges
Resisting Arrest
PC §148(a)(1)
Standard companion charge on any physical non-compliance.
Battery on Officer
PC §243(b)
Any physical contact with officer during dispersal — wobbler.
Assault on Officer
PC §241(c)
Attempted battery on officer — wobbler.
Trespass
PC §602
When gathering is on private property after warning.
Federal Civil Disorder
18 U.S.C. §231
Federal exposure for civil-disorder participation — up to 5 years.
Collateral Consequences
- Mass-arrest booking records — expungement under PC §1203.4
- Immigration analysis in stacked-charge cases
- Employment / licensing background-check impact
- § 1983 civil-rights litigation for wrongful dispersal orders
- LAPD / Sheriff protest-arrest records — discoverable in future cases
- Stay-away or protest-restriction bail conditions
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §416 Failure to Disperse Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. defends §416 cases with body-camera review, First Amendment litigation, and lawful-purpose analysis.
Lawful Purpose of Gathering
The gathering was for lawful purposes — First Amendment protest, social event, street performance — not to disturb peace or commit an unlawful act.
Cox v. Louisiana
No Clear or Audible Command
Officer's command was inaudible from defendant's position, ambiguous, or directed at a different group. §416 requires a clear command to disperse.
PC §416
Command Was Legally Unjustified
Officer ordered dispersal without lawful basis — no actual unlawful purpose or peace disturbance. Overbreadth and vagueness challenges apply.
Coates v. Cincinnati
No Willful Refusal — Kettling / Blocked Egress
Officers surrounded or blocked defendant, then arrested for non-compliance. Officer-caused inability defeats willfulness.
Collins v. Jordan
Not an 'Assembly'
Defendant was walking alone or was near others without shared purpose. Random proximity is not an 'assembly.'
PC §416(a)
First Amendment — Content-Based Enforcement
Dispersal targeted a specific viewpoint while similar gatherings were tolerated. Retaliation defense.
Nieves v. Bartlett
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §416 Failure to Disperse Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
How a PC §416 failure-to-disperse case moves through LA County courts.
- 1
Step 1 — Field Stop / Arrest
Officer commands dispersal; defendant cited or arrested for refusal. Preserve arrest-team identity and body-camera footage.
- 2
Step 2 — Filing Decision
City Attorney reviews for §416 and companion charges. Political-protest and public-figure cases receive senior review.
- 3
Step 3 — Arraignment / Diversion Screening
Charges read; PC §1001.95 diversion or civil-compromise screening applied.
- 4
Step 4 — Body-Camera / Video Review
§1538.5 suppression and §1004 demurrer targeting audibility, direction, and lawfulness of the officer's command.
- 5
Step 5 — Pretrial Motions
Motion in limine on First Amendment protection of underlying gathering; discovery of prior similar enforcement records.
- 6
Step 6 — Trial or Negotiated Plea
Common outcomes: dismissal on lawful-purpose or unclear-command grounds, PC §1001.95 diversion, infraction reduction.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §416 Failure to Disperse Cases
LA-area courts most commonly handling PC §416 filings.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Failure to Disperse Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with failure to disperse and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §416 in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Failure to Disperse Cases Throughout LA County
09 — FAQs
PC §416 Failure to Disperse Questions — Los Angeles
What is PC §416?
California's failure-to-disperse statute. Punishes refusing to disperse when a peace officer commands two or more people gathered for an unlawful purpose or to disturb the peace to leave. Straight misdemeanor.
How is PC §416 different from PC §409?
§409 requires a formal §726 dispersal warning at a §407 unlawful assembly or §404 riot. §416 covers any officer's dispersal command directed at two or more people with an unlawful purpose or peace-disturbing conduct.
Can I be charged if the gathering was peaceful?
No. §416 requires the assembly to have an unlawful purpose or to be disturbing the peace. A lawful peaceful gathering — including a First Amendment protest — cannot support §416.
What if I didn't hear the officer's command?
That is a complete defense. §416 requires a clear command; if the command was inaudible from defendant's position, the willfulness element cannot be proven.
What if I couldn't leave?
That is a complete defense. If officers 'kettled' the crowd, blocked egress routes, or otherwise prevented compliance, willfulness fails.
Is PC §416 a strike or CIMT?
No. §416 is not a strike and is generally deemed non-CIMT (crime of moral turpitude), though stacked charges can affect immigration analysis.
Can I get diversion?
Yes. PC §1001.95 misdemeanor diversion is available and results in dismissal upon completion of court-ordered conditions.
What should I do if I'm arrested for §416?
Say nothing beyond identifying yourself, refuse consent to device searches, preserve any video, get witness contact information, and call Rubin Law, P.C. before any interview.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged With PC §416 Failure to Disperse in Los Angeles?
§416 requires a lawfully justified officer command — but overreach is common. Rubin Law, P.C. defends protesters and street-arrest defendants with body-camera review and First Amendment litigation. Call now.