Terrebonne outlaws saggy britches

Passage of a Terrebonne Parish ordinance that officially makes saggy pants wearers subject to a criminal penalty has drawn attention far from home.

The ordinance – passed last Wednesday by an 8-1 vote – chairwoman Beryl Amedee was the lone opposing vote – criminalizes the wearing of “pants, skirts and other clothing below the waist in public.”

Specifically, the new ordinance makes it a crime “for any person to appear in public view or in a public place wearing pants, skirts or other clothing below the waist which expose the skin or undergarments.”

A violation will result in a summons, but shall not by itself be grounds for an arrest or full search of the person cited.

A first offense carries a $50 fine, second offenses $100, and subsequent offenses $100 plus 16 hours of community service.

Jerome Boykins, President of the Terrebonne Chapter of the NAACP, was among members of the public expressing support of the measure, calling it a “people issue” and criticizing the wearing of pants below the waist as indicative of a “prison mentality.”

Diane Collins, the NAACP’s youth director, brought about a dozen young people with her and spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Houma resident Ida Moore spoke against the ordinance, criticizing it as discriminatory because it targets youth. Two other residents, Robert Brunet and Lucretia McBride, also stated their opposition.

The strongest opposition to the measure came in the form of a letter from Marjorie Esman, Director of the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, who urged its defeat “as a violation of the Constitutional rights of the people of Terrebonne Parish.”

“To ban a particular clothing style would violate a liberty interest guaranteed

under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution,” Esman said.

“The government must demonstrate a rational basis for its ban – and Terrebonne Parish has no legitimate rational basis for regulating the attire of its residents,” Esman’s letter states. “The proposed ordinance as described would also be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. It allows no accidental slippage. It allows no one to inadvertently have underwear peek out while bending over. It makes no concessions for the stereotype of ‘plumber’s or ‘carpenter’s crack.’ It makes a criminal of everyone whose pants are not high enough to suit the arbitrary standards of law enforcement.”

Because the style is often associated with young black men, Esman wrote, the ban could result in unfair profiling of people in that group on the basis of race.

“If enforced against those who choose this style and not against enforced against everyone whose pants may inadvertently sag, it will almost certainly be enforced disproportionately against a particular group of people who will be singled out by law enforcement for nothing other than their attire,” wrote Esman, who advised that state law already prohibits the exposure of the “genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples in any public place or place open to the public view, or in any prison or jail, with the intent of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest or is patently offensive.”

Existing law therefore already addresses the problem of exposure.

Additional legislation is unnecessary, and potentially violates other provisions of Louisiana law, Esman wrote.

Since the passage of the ordinance, Internet blogs in the UK have made note of it. A short story appeared in the New York Daily News this past weekend, and in the Internat daily Huffington Post.

Councilman Dirk Guidry said he is aware of the concerns, but felt that the public support for the bill dictated he take a stand.

“Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do,” Guidry said.

Amedee said being the one vote against indeed put her in a lonely place, but that she feels strongly about the potential for constitutional violation.

“It specifies the way a garment is worn and to me that is style,” Amedee said. “The government should not legislate style, it is not the government’s job to regulate style.”

Amedee said she would have been comfortable placing the exposed underwear ban within an existing ordinance, but local ordinances concerning nudity would have made for a clumsy insertion.

The council’s ordinance was modeled after an existing law in Shreveport. Lafourche Parish has a similar ordinance, which District Attorney Cam Morvant said is rarely enforced. When it is, Morvant said, the enforcement is often in conjunction with other offenses.

The style of pants worn low and exposing undergarments – while often associated with black rappers and urban culture – is not limited to those groups.

White pop heartthrob Justin Bieber recently turned heads when he was photographed in an extreme saggy-pants appearance.

Exposure of underwear was brought to a mass audience in the early 1990s by white pop star Marky Mark.

Although touted by motivational speakers as a sign of sexual availability in prisons and jails, fashion historians have been quoted on Internet myth-busting sites and national publications as stating that the beginnings are not quite so nefarious.

The need to hold up loose or ill-fitting jail or prison clothing, they have stated, is the origin of the style, which translated to mass media through videos and public appearances by hip-hop performers.

Informed of the law’s passage Monday, Esman stood by her concern that it violates the constitution. The law “appears to be a restriction of personal liberty and something that can lead to racial profiling,” Esman said. “It is something Terrebonne Parish will have to be very cautious about.”