Strange Topfree arrest in Ohio

[Bob S.]

According to the Cincinatti Post, a man was arrested for indecent exposure for going topless. This man is described as a 6-foot, 200-pound {man...who} has the breasts of a female.

There are two major issues in this arrest. One, the obvious, is that Jerome Mason, the one arrested, is male and therefore has the right everywhere in the country to go shirtless. The second, according to a public defender (not yet retained by Mason) mentioned the caselaw that given women the freedom to go topless.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

According to the Cincinatti Post, a man was arrested for indecent exposure for going topless. This man is described as a 6-foot, 200-pound {man...who} has the breasts of a female.

There are two major issues in this arrest. One, the obvious, is that Jerome Mason, the one arrested, is male and therefore has the right everywhere in the country to go shirtless. The second, according to a public defender (not yet retained by Mason) mentioned the caselaw that given women the freedom to go topless.

Bob S.

[pek1]

Good Lord! 30 days? They give drunk drivers less than that...even less if you are an active member of Congress!


Pete

[MikeJB]

This is absurd. Even if the breasts of this man LOOK like female breasts, the fact is theyre NOT female breasts, theyre male breasts because he is a male and his right to go topfree is protected by law because he is male and thus the police have no right arresting him for that.

[KirkOntario]

quote:

Originally posted by pek1:
Good Lord! 30 days? They give drunk drivers less than that...even less if you are an active member of Congress!


Pete

That's the maximum for the offence. There is probably a fine provision as well.

[Guest]

quote:

Originally posted by MikeJB:
This is absurd. Even if the breasts of this man LOOK like female breasts, the fact is theyre NOT female breasts, theyre male breasts because he is a male and his right to go topfree is protected by law because he is male and thus the police have no right arresting him for that.

It's not against the law for women to be topfree in Ohio either.

[Naturist Mark]

An earlier thread on this case is HERE.

The upshot is that the charges would probably have been dropped if the guy had only lawyered up.

-Mark

[MikeJB]

quote:

It's not against the law for women to be topfree in Ohio either.

Yeah I know, my point was since he was a male it was a more well known and well established fact that him being shirtless was completely legal and thats why he should definitely not have been arrested for what he did. Even though its legal there, im sure the law would be more vague to some in a woman's case because im sure not everybody is aware of the law there concerning a woman.

[KirkOntario]

quote:

Originally posted by MikeJB:

quote:

It's not against the law for women to be topfree in Ohio either.

Yeah I know, my point was since he was a male it was a more well known and well established fact that him being shirtless was completely legal and thats why he should definitely not have been arrested for what he did. Even though its legal there, im sure the law would be more vague to some in a woman's case because im sure not everybody is aware of the law there concerning a woman.

Was he obviously male? What are the facts around his arrest? I'd like to know.

[Guest]

quote:

Originally posted by MikeJB:

quote:

It's not against the law for women to be topfree in Ohio either.

Yeah I know, my point was since he was a male it was a more well known and well established fact that him being shirtless was completely legal and thats why he should definitely not have been arrested for what he did. Even though its legal there, im sure the law would be more vague to some in a woman's case because im sure not everybody is aware of the law there concerning a woman.

Being a cop means you should know the law, period.

[KirkOntario]

quote:

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Being a cop means you should know the law, period.

Cops are neither lawyers nor judges. Cops receive some legal education but it is incomplete. Many areas of the law a grey ones so there is no such thing as 'knowing the law' in a comprehensive sense since much of our legal system is based on common law or the interpretaton of statutes. Example: what is it to be nude? Are you nude if you are wearing shoes? Not according to some judges based on an interpretation of what it means to be nude.

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Cops are neither lawyers nor judges. Cops receive some legal education but it is incomplete.

Kirk is absolutely right. Most cops are very well educated about the law, but they cannot possibly know every detail and nuance, especially of law modified by legal precedent.

A Cincinnati vice cop should certainly know the Ohio law relating to indecent exposure - but this arrest may not have been by a vice cop, so there may be good reason to excuse the officer for not knowing the law. BUT, there is absolutely no excuse for the prosecutor to not have researched and learned the exact measure of the law before confering charges - that is professional incompetence at best.

It is also true we don't know the whole story.
Apparently the young man in question is a transvestite or transexual with a troubled history - it is entirely possible that his arrest was precipitated by obnoxious or lewd behavior. BUT, if that is the case he should have been charged for that, not for the entirely legal act of exposing his breasts - which is not under any circumstances an indecent or illegal act under Ohio law. Even if the arresting officers charges were incorrect, the prosecutor should have had knowledge and professional competence to drop the improper charges and file the correct ones (if any).

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Cops are there to enforce the law so they should be knowledgeable about all the laws that could affect them on a daily basis. All police officers should know that men can go shirtless. Isn't that an obvious fact?

"Was he obviously male? What are the facts around his arrest? I'd like to know."

Kirk, from Fox News, "He's a guy. He's real tall, and he's got a full set of breasts," prosecutor Kevin Donovan told a courtroom Tuesday, according to the Cincinnati Post

The site also mentions that it is not known if his breasts came about naturally, knwon as gynecomastia as explained in the site, or via implants.

This man also, according to the article, has grown out his hair into a feminine "chin-length bob". But of course, none of that matters since women are allowed to go topless as well for the past 15 years, something the cops should know.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

quote:

Being a cop means you should know the law, period.

Cops dont know all laws though and some are rather vague about what is legal and what isnt. Even if the cop didnt know the law, when the guy ended up in court, the prosecutor and everybody else involved in the case shouldve known the laws and should have found this man innocent and let him go.

Weither what the man was doing was legal or not, the whole issue involved was rather trivial anyways and the cop shouldve just ignored the guy and not done anything because he wasnt harming anyone.

[KirkOntario]

Police usually lay summary conviction type charges on their own. At that point the case goes into an overburdened system and prosecutors will decide if there is enough evidence to convict. They do not 'find people innocent'. Judges don't 'find people innocent' either; they find people 'not guilty' which is not the same thing. At some point the prosecutor may decide to withdraw the charges or proceed. Sounds like he's only had a first appearance and showed up with no lawyer. Not much happens at a first appearance though if he had a lawyer this issue could have been raised.

My guess is this guy is a pre-op transexual who was exposing his breasts for a sexual purpose. Possibly on the stroll. That's why I'm waiting to hear the facts surrounding his arrest. We cannot assume no one was hurt or that the circumstances were 'trivial.' Still it may be very likely that he was charged with the wrong charge and that 'lewd conduct' or some similar offence was more appropriate.