Delcambre passed an ordinance this week that is extremely too vague and impossible to enforce. One of the first things a person learns in high school level Law Studies is that laws have to be specific and enforcable.

Let us analysis this ordinance line by line. The first part states: "ãIt shall be unlawful for any person in any public place or in view of the public to be found in a state of nudity, or partial nudity . . ." While the common American concept of nudity is clearly understood, which is a state of being completely exposed without any clothing, there is no clear definition of partial nudity. Partial nudity needs to be defined in the law. The second part states: ". . . or in dress not becoming to his or her sex . .. ." What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that if a man wears pink, a color associated generally with the female sex, as inappropriate? What is a man grabs his wifes pink fuzzy slippers to fetch the morning paper early one Sunday morning? Continuing, the ordinance goes on to say: ". . ..or in any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments. . ." What if a white grown man walks out to check his mail wearing an open robe with nothing but a t-shirt and his boxer shorts? Would that be considered indecent exposure? Finally, the ordinance says: ". . .or be guilty of any indecent or lewd behavior.ä What is indecent or lewd behavior? It is not defined. I believe noisy children in a resturant is indecent; thus, can we arrest those parents? Lewd generally refers to acts that refer to sexual acts. Given this vague definition, people could be arrested for cajun dancing at a festival. After all, some towns have outlawed dancing as lewd (but those laws were specific with their definition.

It is nearly impossible to create an ordinance to regulate sagging. While I consider it to be inappropriate dress personally, I do not think we can outlaw a dress that does not expose any genitalia. Sagging does not expose any flesh between the waist and eight inches above the knee for a man. Infact, bathing suits, such as Speedos, expose way more flesh on a male than sagging does. The sagging style is a fad that will either die out or will continue, no matter what we do. There was a time when a woman exposing her ankle was sinful! Now, you see women walking around is g-string bikinis and that is completely fine.

Advertisement

The enforcability of the law is nearly impossible. The law sets one person's word against the other person's word. Swearing under oath or signing an affidavit is not enough evidence to convict someone of this "crime." However, if the offended person takes a picture as evidence, that person can be arrested for possessing indecent pictures without consent of the person (given the vague language of "indecent" in this ordinance). Also, attempting to enforce this law will take time away from real criminal issues, such as theft and murders, and tie up the courts even longer. Instead of pulling up some guys pants, that cop could be monitoring traffic in a school zone. Iberia Parish is already complaining they are understaffed to provide such monitoring.

Jarred James Breaux