Elrico Knowles was charged with disorderly conduct after using profane words toward police officers during a traffic encounter. The trial court denied his motion to suppress and allowed the prosecution to proceed, treating the words as potentially criminal fighting words. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that speech is not outside First Amendment protection merely because it is insulting or profane, and the State had not shown that Knowles’s words were likely to provoke an immediate violent response under the circumstances. The court distinguished cases involving threats, physical aggression, or conduct accompanying the words and emphasized that the constitutional inquiry depends on the context of the particular exchange. The trial court therefore erred in denying the motion on the theory that the words alone established disorderly conduct. The judgment was reversed, and two judges concurred.