Indecent Exposure: No Crack in Existing Law
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County: People v. Martinez
The hot ticket on American Idol 2010 wasn’t the ultimate winner, it was General Larry Platt performing his original song, Pants on the Ground, as he rapped, “call yourself a cool cat... lookin’ like a fool with your pants on the ground.” The man is a seer! And now, we too shall be seers of judicially approved exposed underwear since the Criminal Court in the fashion capitol of the world has ruled that “the Constitution still leaves some opportunity for people to be foolish if they so desire.” Kudos for General Platt!
An April 20, 2009 Julio Martinez was charged with Disorderly Conduct for wearing droopy drawers “exposing underwear potentially showing private parts.” He moved in court to dismiss claiming the summons was “facially insufficient.” Examining the law and the evidence, the court concluded that the language of the Disorderly Conduct statute “did not intend to be used to regulate public dress,” only “conduct which affects the public tranquility.” While this might be a wedge (wedgie) issue which divides public opinion, blind justice will not be offended by nearly exposed behinds or by fruit of the loom with a view.
According to the court, the summons appears to be an attempt “by one police officer to show his displeasure with a particular style of dress” (a wedgie may have been the better way to go), and in the Big Apple, “people can dress as they please, wear anything, so long as they do not offend public order and decency.” Case dismissed. The law, at least in this case, is not an ass.
Apparently, unless there’s full disclosure, there’s no crime.
