Custom Search

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Fla. judge rules saggy pants law unconstitutional

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.

13 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 09/17/2008 03:02:33 PM CDT


RIVIERA BEACH, Fla.—A judge has decided a law banning sagging pants in this town is unconstitutional after a teenager spent a night in jail on accusations he exposed too much underwear.
Julius Hart, 17, was charged last week after an officer said he spotted the teenager riding his bicycle with 4 to 5 inches of blue-and-black boxer shorts revealed.

Hart's public defender, Carol Bickerstaff, urged a judge Monday to strike down the sagging pants law, telling him: "Your honor, we now have the fashion police."

Circuit Judge Paul Moyle ruled that the law was unconstitutional based on "the limited facts" of the case. Technically, however, the charge hasn't been dropped yet: a new arraignment awaits Hart on Oct. 5.

Voters in Riviera Beach approved the law in March. A first offense for sagging pants carries a $150 fine or community service, and habitual offenders face the possibility of jail time.

Bickerstaff said she wants the city to drop the law—regardless of whether anyone dislikes low-riding pants.

"The first time I saw this particular fashion, I disliked it," she told the judge. "And then I realized I'm getting old."

6:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the prosecute any plumbers for having saggy pants?

Mark

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was in court back in 1988 and watched a Judge give a black guy 3 days in the workhouse for walking
around the skyways in St.Paul with baggy pants.

Folks in the courtroon clapped after the Judge threw him in the clink.

I was one of those folks.

Jeff Matiatos

8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like I said before though, if men can go topless so should women be able to.

Any liberated feminists or women second the motion ?




Jeff Matiatos

8:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm w/ Jeff on his 8:15 post!

Mark

8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where are ya Froggy?

8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS:

Disenting Judge "take it to Utube"
Dissenting Judge Tells Lawyers to Take It to YouTube

Used to be that when dissenting judges didn't get their way, they could only get mad. But as federal judge Beverly Martin's dissent in Buckley v. Haddock (11th Cir. 2008) shows, dissenting judges can now also get even in the court of public opinion -- courtesy of YouTube.

9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge on a Leash Video Legal Bear
Easy Watch, Educational
We see 19Jan09 LandLords RICO is after US President, MN Senators Elections,

9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jan. 19th 2009 will be the start of a very interesting trial!

11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Say Froggy.....can we get a comment?

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why waste tax payers money?

Shoot em!

froggy

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you (jeff M.) are saying about this artilcle is both foolish and ignorant. Sure sagging your pants has affiliation with criminals because of where one of the ideas of saggin came from (jail). But if you opened you eyes to where sagging ORIGINALY came from you would know that saggin came from slavery. slave owners did not allow slave to wear belts, preventing them from running and to humiliate them as well. I feel that sagging now is nothing but a fashion statement. And last time i checked you had freedom of expression. That is all fashion is all fachion is. Expressing your self. Not everyone who saggs is a criminal. People are going to wear their clothes how they feel they want too. Regardless. This law itself is interfering with your human rights.

and for the record the origin for jail house sagging was to "put themselves out there".

1:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home