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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT