Standard Issue Rulers

20 07 2008

Me, on June 13, 2007:

At that point, the city would have to go back and amend the law to say in absolute terms how much underwear is exposed before a crime is being committed.  That would mean that, along with pistol, mace, baton and radio, Delcambre’s cops will have to carry around rulers, and when they see a man with exposed underwear, they’ll have to order him to freeze, hope that he doesn’t pull up his pants in earnest (else arrest him for destroying evidence), then measure the length from the top of the pants to to the top of the underwear at the point around his waist where the differential seems greatest, and arrest or cite him if it’s greater than legally permitted.  Yeah, sure, I can see the cops in that town would be really thrilled to have to do that sort of thing, especially in this day and age of lawsuits, that the cop could face if he or she touches the low-riding suspect in the wrong place in the wrong way.

AP, today:

It’s the law: No sagging pants in Chicago suburb

LYNWOOD, Ill. – Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.

(snip)

Young adults in the village, like 21-year-old Joe Klomes, say the new law infringes on their personal style. He says leaders should instead spend money on making the area look nicer.

That’s what they’re trying to do, dummy.  It might be futile, but in good faith nonetheless.  And also in good constitutional faith, because it quantifies the amount of underwear that must be exposed to be violating the ordinance.

Another scenario:  You’re showing 3.1 inches of underwear.  A Lynwood cop spots you, tells you to stop, gets out his ruler.  Before he gets to you, you pull your pants up.  He arrests you for obstruction of justice.  How does the prosecution prove that you did obstruct justice?  Unless there’s a spy camera around, it’s the sagger’s word against the cop’s.  However, the judicial system isn’t going to waist their time to squabble over a tenth of an inch of underwear.


Actions

Information