revertmastec
Petty Officer 1st Class
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 279
You have to Love Virginia<br /><br /><br />§ 18.2-387.1. Indecent display of underwear<br /><br /><br />Fashion trends come and go, but Pete Reeves of Roanoke insists, "Baggy pants are here to stay." Given the way Reeves and his friends wear their trousers - loose and low - it is unlikely he means stay at the waist. <br /><br />Under a bill that passed the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday, Reeves may want to reconsider that trend in favor of pants with a snugger fit. <br /><br />Dubbed the "Droopy Drawers" bill, the proposed law - which passed the House on a 60-34 vote - would fine anyone who "intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments" in public. People who wear baggy pants and low-rise jeans, both popular styles with teenagers, would be the bill's likely targets. <br /><br />Del. Algie Howell, D-Norfolk, the bill's sponsor, has said the legislation comes in response to constituents who find exposed underwear offensive. But valleywide, Virginians gave annoyed, and often apprehensive, responses to the legislation Wednesday. <br /><br />At Rave, a clothing store at Valley View Mall in Roanoke that sells primarily to young women, the possible restriction riled employees. <br /><br />"Why's it anybody's business how you wear your pants as long as it's not indecent exposure?" said employee RaeLea Wimmer. Her co-worker, Andrea Cuzmar, wondered about the bill's specifics. "If I'm walking and happen to have a thong string hanging out, I could get the fine?" Cuzmar asked. <br /><br />Walking home from William Fleming High School, sophomore Anthony Rich sensed a cultural bias. "To us, sagging is the same as how you wear your pants," he said. <br /><br />Sgt. Craig Harris of the Vinton Police Department felt hesitant about citing "Droopy Drawers" violations. "What officer wants to be the first one to bring that to court anyway?" said Harris, who suggested schools could dole out penalties more effectively. "Do we have anything else we can spend our time looking at?" <br /><br />Running just under 50 words, the bill has concerned some over potential ambiguities in its interpretation. <br /><br />Samuel Wilson of Roanoke called it "another reason to cause trouble." Though most young men sag their pants, Wilson said, enforcement could be unevenly applied. <br /><br />Others doubted it would be applied at all. "I don't believe that that bill is going to advance very far simply because it's going to be relatively unenforceable," said Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Don Caldwell. "So I think it is highly improbable that that bill becomes law during the course of this General Assembly." <br /><br />Similarly, Kent Willis, executive <br />director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, thought the bill crossed constitutional boundaries. "If this is a trend, then legislators will have to pass numerous bills every year to keep up with the latest fashions that they find offensive," Willis said. <br /><br />Kelvin Coffey, fashion editor for XXL, a New York-based urban lifestyle magazine, said legislation would have little effect on style choices. "You're just representing where you're from." <br /><br />And as for the ladies' low-slung jeans, Coffey said, "I think that's a sexy look, I'm not going to lie. I can't see a guy arguing with that even if he's in the state government." <br /><br />Though Howell, who has received attention from news sources around the world this week, could not be reached for comment, the bill found some local support, even in unlikely places. <br /><br />"There's a place to be provocative and a place to be adult, civil," said Randi Chernitzer of Norfolk, whose 19-year-old son wears his pants on the low side but always with a belt. "We're not fuddy-duddies," said Chernitzer, who was dining with a friend at Valley View Mall. "But we're not to the place where we think this is fashionable." <br /><br />While the bill specifically cites intentional displays of underwear, some think that exceptions should be made for inadvertent displays. <br /><br />But not James Franklin, a plumber with Rooter Out Sewer & Drain Service in Roanoke, who said lots of kids wear pants low, but neither he nor his co-workers do. <br /><br />"I think they should go and pass it," Franklin said. <br /><br />HOUSE BILL NO. 1981<br /><br /><br />AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE<br /><br /><br />(Proposed by the House Committee for Courts of Justice<br /><br /><br />on February 4, 2005)<br /><br /><br />(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Howell, A.T.)<br /><br /><br />A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 18.2-387.1, relating to indecent display of below-waist undergarments. <br /><br /><br />Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:<br /><br /><br />1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-387.1 as follows:<br /><br /><br />§ 18.2-387.1. Indecent display of underwear.<br /><br /><br />Any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner, shall be subject to a civil penalty of no more than $50. "Intimate parts" has the same meaning as in § 18.2-67.10.
