Pull up your pants or face a fine

March 30, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One northern Indiana town is considering an ordinance that would require people to wear their pants a certain way.

Merrillville officials have discussed banning people from wearing saggy pants in public. It’s not a novel idea – several cities and towns across the country have banned the style. In Albany, Ga., city officials say that an ordinance banning saggy pants – defined as pants or skirts worn more than three inches below the top of hips – has netted nearly $4,000 in fines from 187 citations. Albany instituted its ban in November 2010.

Officials seeking to ban the style apparently aren’t fans of the look – often pants are worn so low that most of one’s underwear is shown and a belt is needed to keep the pants in place. I’ve also seen people holding up their pants with one hand as they walk. What people will do for fashion!

There are concerns that if a ban is adopted, it could be challenged as unconstitutional. Some worry that bans could be imposed on other styles of dress.

What do you think – should a town be able to dictate how its residents dress?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Whole heartedly - I agree!
    Yes a city can dictate how its citizens dress if how they dress offends laws of the city. I think that wearing your pants so low that you can see your underwear is indecent exposure, which I believe is against the law. If that attitude was taken when it first started as a fashion statement we may not be talking about this issue now. Just like wearing a dress so short I can see your underwear or cut so low I can see far more breast that I care to.
  • no problem
    Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT