Constitutional Law
Judge Rules Saggy Pants Ban Violates Constitution
Posted Apr 24, 2009 12:33 PM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A Florida judge has ruled a city ordinance banning saggy pants violates the Constitution.
Judge Laura Johnson ruled the droopy drawers ban enacted by Riviera Beach voters violates the 14th Amendment, the Palm Beach Post reports. Johnson said there was no legitimate governmental interest in the ban, and the Constitution must prevail no matter how "tacky or distasteful" the fashion style.
City attorney Matthew Russell had argued the ban was needed to improve the city’s image and to prevent criminals from hiding weapons in their pants, the story says.
Assistant public defenders Dan Cohen and John Rivera had countered with expert testimony that saggy pants had become mainstream, and even Prince Harry wore them.
Another judge ruled last September that the ban is unconstitutional as applied to one teen arrested for violating the ordinance.
Hat tip to How Appealing.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in Web Comment Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Apr 24, 2009 4:01 PM CST
Those pants are a blessing for lawyers and the whole criminal system. The morons wearing them can’t run when the police give chase. They get tangled up and fall down. Sometimes, their guns get tangled in the pants and they shoot themselves in the leg trying to get their weapon out. The pants lead to more captures, more cases, and more work for lawyers. I think the concept of these pants as “gangsta fashion” was planted by undercover officers.
Kalifornia Arnold
Apr 24, 2009 6:23 PM CST
Gives a new meaning to “suing his pants off” or “flying by the seat of his pants” (I’d better stop panting or I’ll run out of breath) By the way, any objection in this pants case would be thrown out as immaterial
LAB
Apr 27, 2009 1:13 PM CST
The problem with the droopy pants comes when the exposure of body parts becomes obscene, which has been known to happen. Besides, I don’t even want to see someone’s underwear, let alone certain body parts. Unconstitutional, yes, this is a freedom of self-expression issue. Morality, yes, this does involve morality. It seems like this fashion trend isn’t going away any time soon, so we’ll just have to grin as those who wear the droopy pants bare it.
kumar
Apr 27, 2009 3:14 PM CST
Lets just stack the court in order to uphold the constitutionality of the saggy butt ban.
B. McLeod
Apr 28, 2009 12:52 AM CST
I think I’ve heard of the Saggy Butted Boys. Are they old-timey?
Dick Bird
Apr 28, 2009 2:19 AM CST
This is stupid, fighting what clothes you wear. What lawyer would take this case? No wonder we get a bad name with this stuff.
kumar
Apr 28, 2009 10:18 AM CST
THe SBBs sing a combination of gangsta rap and barbershop.” Yo Yo a Bicycle Built for F* two of my posse!”
Cj
Apr 28, 2009 11:22 AM CST
Either the pants are obscene or they’re not. If not you should be able to wear them. We’re not in elementary school and if the government wants to tell people they can’t wear the clothes they’ve legally paid for which are admittedly not obscene, than they can start writing checks for a good ole fashion economic taking.
As for the lawyers taking the case, good for them. It’s equally obvious that this ban is trying to target young urban (and probably mostly minoritiy) males.
B. McLeod
Apr 28, 2009 11:54 AM CST
I don’t think it’s a “taking” unless they actually seize the pants, and maybe not then, if it is by “taxation” (which, if you think about it, is the way they normally get your pants). I think the ban may have been targeting Prince Harry, but he’ll just get even by putting on his Hitler costume.
mukktar
Apr 28, 2009 12:32 PM CST
McLeod - Are you referring to His Royal Harry Highness? Perhaps he should wear a belt
J.G. Scone
Apr 28, 2009 10:01 PM CST
I think that someone was slacks in this case. I think that the pants should not be the issue but the undergarments. If your poopy panties are showing pull em up. Undergarments were designed to be under other garments and not on display. Someone should sue Superman for wearing his briefs on the wrong side of his pants and starting the whole thiing.
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.