associated offence). A failure to enter into a recognizance may of itself lead to a person being committed to custody under s.115(3) Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Nowadays a person causing a public disturbance may be arrested for, and/or charged with, causing harassment, alarm or distress contrary to the Public Order Act 1986. Scotland There are major differences between English law and Scots law with respect to dealing with breach of the peace; unlike England and Wales where criminal penalties apply to the behaviour leading to or liable to cause a breach of the peace, it is a specific criminal offence in Scotland which is prosecuted daily in the sheriff courts and due to its common law definition it can be applied to a number of scenarios. The maximum punishment if a case is remitted to the High Court remains imprisonment for life although such severe punishment is now rarely applied, usually being associated with breaches of licence during an existing life sentence. Breach of the peace consists of "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community". A constable may arrest any person, without warrant, who commits a breach of the peace. A member of the public may not arrest a person for behaviour which amounts to no more than a breach of the peace (i.e. an arrest is not always for the offence for which someone is eventually prosecuted but can be for a more serious crime that appears to be occurring). Breach of the peace can include, but is not limited to, any riotous behaviours (which includes "rowdiness" or "brawling") and any disorderly behaviour. This behaviour need not be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include persistently following someone, delivering threatening letters and "streaking" or "mooning". One of the leading cases in Scots law is that of Smith v Donnelly, a case concerning a Faslane protester. United States In the United States, prosecutions for breach of the peace are subject to constitutional constraints. In Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949), the United States Supreme Court held that an ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Justice Douglas stated: "Accordingly a function of