So I was reading our local paper, "The Isthmus," and found this article:

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=29763

Not only does this officer overreact to a peaceful protest, but then he refuses this person's right to cover herself. It's pretty ironic, considering the reason she was arrested was for exposing herself in the first place.

My opinion of the law enforcement around here has never been particularly high, but it seems I'll have to reevaluate my expectations after this... debacle.

-------------Edit-------------

Of course there are plenty of good officers on the force. I'd hate to put the rest of the force into the same box as Gonzalez.

page not found

It cut off the URL for some reason. I will revise this now.

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=29763

Same sentiment you had. This was a demonstration of bad policing, something I'm glad to have avoided as an officer, but there are good police out there. It's just a shame all we ever hear about are these guys being jerks and not the cops that deserve attention.

In the same paper:

"Dear Tell All: Recently I found a small pair of plastic women's breasts in my drawer at home. There was a hole in them and I fashioned a necklace so I could hang them around my neck. My significant other — a staunch and vocal feminist — seems to find this act offensive and demeaning to women. I see it as a really cool, humorous art form. I think we need help. She is hinting an end to our relationship if I continue to wear my necklace.

Fashionman

Dear Fashionman: Are you suicidal? You're dating a staunch feminist and you're demented enough to taunt her with a breast necklace? You might as well tease an angry bull by prodding him with his own horn. There's a reason that Paula Abdul's cheap line of jewelry doesn't include a tiny-tittie necklace: because it's just plain dumb. I could add offensive, demeaning, insulting and tasteless. You don't have to be a feminist to have that opinion — in your case, just a survivalist."

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=29846&sid=b77bdb2de3bd738f58183f7146c719c8

I wonder if the "staunch feminist" would support the cyclist?

The police really need to crack down on the police. The way they have been bahaving (the bad ones- which get more recognition that the good ones, I'm dure) should not be taken lightly and should be dealt with swiftly and harshly to ensure that the police are doing their best to help people.

IF she was in compliance with the state & local regulations on the subject, the police officer in question was in the wrong to cite her for the charge in question.

However I do not agree with the argument that the bicyclist presents over the tshirt incident. It sounds as if her argument basically consists of the following; 1- As a member of a large mass of people she felt comfortable being shirtless, 2- once in police custody she felt she lost control & did not like that, 3- She feels entitled to change her appearance while in police custody because she was not comfortable with how she looked at the time.

As a matter of law, one really isn't relevant. If I go to a protest where people are wearing bright yellow chicken suits, wear such an outfit to fit in with the protest, and then feel apprehensive about sitting alone in a bright yellow chicken suit, well that's on me for deciding to wear such a thing in public in the first place.

Point two is straight forward enough: when you're in police custody, you're not in control. Period. You have a finite amount of rights relating to time spent in custody, and that's it. Miranda does not state you have a right to modesty while in police custody!

Point three has no legal basis. People are arrested in peculiar outfits all the time. The police are not required to let people change upon being taken into custody, nor in advance of taking mug shots. If a guy gets arrested in a speedo for being drunk at a beach, do they HAVE to let him throw a tsirt on if he requests it? Not as far as I know.

Yet the argument that the girl has about her citation is that she was not in violation of the law. If she was not breaking the law by being topless [as she claims] then why exactly would the police be required to let her put on a tshirt?

Yet you would think that the officer wouldn' act in such a way, being a prick over something so trivial. Also he shouldn't have assaulted her with the shirt, that was severely out of line.

I think you missed the point. She wasn't challenging the citation. She exposed herself in public and broke the law in doing so (for simplicity's sake, we'll leave out the fact that it's a ridiculous law to begin with). That's not what she had a problem with.

Let's review a quote from the article:


This officer was arresting her because she was exposed, but then refused to let her cover herself (in other words, he was forcing her to continue to break the law. Not a very police-like thing to do).

^^^^
As near as I can find she wasn't breaking the law as bodypaint would fit the definition of
"the showing or exposing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple."

The Miranda rights apply only to the suspect's decision to talk or remain silent under arrest and to have legal representation. The relevant right is:

taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Voluntary nudity is not degrading. INvoluntary nudity is. This is why prostitutes is a valid career in some jurisdictions while sex slave is not in those same jurisdictions. It's all a matter of personal choice as to wether a situation is degrading or not, denied in this case by the arresting officer and affirmed by the witnesses.

Personally I think the cop was failing in his duties by allowing the offence he arrested her for to continue, and in fact forcing it to. There should be some fallout here.

Very true. Another question also comes to mind though. Why exactly did he pick her over all the other topless bicyclists?

It's not clear as to why he picked her. Easy target? Who knows. She certainly isn't bad looking, but I don't have any evidence to back up a claim that he picked her out due to appearance.

I really don't know why it would matter who he picked. It could have been anyone, really.

She will be challenging the citation, first sentence of paragraph two:





Did she break the law? I am not so sure that is the case here.



The reason why police would not be [in theory] hassling people with their nipples obscured with material [in this case body paint] is because wearing said body paint fulfills the legal statutes. The law says you have to wear things that cover certain parts of your body, it does not spell out what those materials be made out of, or how many microns thick the material must be. As far as the law is concerned your clothing could be made out of duct tape, recycled car tires, or garbage bags- all that matters is whether the body parts spelled out in the law are covered. A form fitting latex film would as a matter of law be no different from a tight, form fitting top made out of polyester or silk.



At the very least she has a problem with the $429 fine, otherwise she wouldn't be saying she is going to be challenging the citation in court. But you're right, the article says:



In other words, she was fine with being out in public wearing nothing but body paint, but as soon as she was [wrongfully] arrested for it, she became embarrassed, and wanted to change into something that showed less of her body. But she was in police custody and was not [as a matter of law] entitled to make a different choice about her attire.



IF she was not breaking the law, then she is not technically nude.

I did say that "She wasn't challenging the citation." I was wrong in saying that, but I wasn't speaking from a legal standpoint. She seems have far more of a problem with the officer's conduct than the ticket itself. This was my intended assertion.

This quote is slightly different in the paper:


My copy of the Isthmus had not included "...as her's were." at the end. Perhaps that part was revised on the web article.

The police officer declared that she was breaking the law, at which point she is entitled to consider the word of a law enforcement official binding and consider herself nude then take the reasonable steps to remedy it.

As a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights she is entitled, as a matter of law, to dignified treatment. This was clearly lacking.