“A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it’s illegal.”
UPDATE: On a serious note, Chief Beckner threatened to arrest harmless naked Halloween revelers as sex offenders, which is no laughing matter, an abuse of authority, and should be grounds for his dismissal.
Bob Lipton says:
If they have jack-o’-lanterns on their heads, they are wearing something. Therefore they are not naked.
Bob
November 3, 2009, 8:52 amRightSaidFred says:
Instead of the tag being “Humor,” it should be “Totalitarianism”
November 3, 2009, 9:21 amDaniel Chapman says:
Yeah, if we don’t have the right to run down the street naked with pumpkins on our heads, what rights DO we have?
November 3, 2009, 9:26 amtom says:
I think that depends on who is actually running. I would think it would only be alarming if they were old, chunky, wrinkly, saggy, or another similar adjective. My guess is that the only folks willing to run naked through Boulder in October with a pumpkin on their head are going to be fit and 20-ish. That might be fun to watch–certainly not “alarming”.
November 3, 2009, 9:30 amanomdebus says:
Daniel,
November 3, 2009, 9:36 amI think they are referencing the apparent argument: “alarming” => illegal not “salacious” => illegal.
Federal Farmer says:
Without pictures, this thread is useless.
November 3, 2009, 9:38 amTamerlane says:
“Shrinkage” should reduce some of the alarming nature of the event.
November 3, 2009, 9:40 amDOuglas says:
It worries me that a police chief can say “we’ll twist the meaning of words in order to have an excuse to arrest people, and we’ll try to charge them as sex-offenders”. It worries me more when the prosecutor says “we’ll back up the police when they do this”. It obviously worried the potential participants in the pumpkin-run, because the numbers were way down and the level of clothing on those who did run way up.
I don’t agree with the manner of expression, and I have no idea what the content of the expression of the pumpkin run is supposed to be.
But I find it distressing that the police chief and prosecutor will so clearly make the statements they did to the press and in public, and they have no fear of themselves being arrested for their obvious willingness to voilate rights.
November 3, 2009, 9:49 amCornellian says:
I don’t think they can be alarming “by definition” unless they’re running with alarm clocks on their heads instead of pumpkins.
I find Chief Beckner’s attitude alarming, and I think I’ll tack on the phrase “by definition”, thereby rendering him illegal.
November 3, 2009, 9:50 amDjDiverDan says:
The idea of a Police Chief with nothing much but mashed potatoes between his ears is an alarming thought – it must be illegal.
November 3, 2009, 10:21 amKirk Parker says:
Too much second-guessing going on here: for just one example, how could the Police be certain they weren’t zombies?
November 3, 2009, 10:36 amSeaDrive says:
Welcome to the 21st century where nudity is a sex offense.
November 3, 2009, 10:47 amclicky
Daniel Chapman says:
If people want to do this, I suggest they find a community that won’t prosecute them for it. If no such community exists, maybe they shouldn’t do it. If the community they live in has changed to the point where people no longer tolerate it, maybe they should stop.
Sorry, I don’t buy the “totalitarianism” argument. There are private camps for you to go do that.
November 3, 2009, 11:11 amjosh says:
Is the objection the arrest in total, or the grounds/charges? Are you saying public nudity is not a crime? I take no position on whether it should be, but it certainly is a crime where I come from (see 720 ILCS 5/11 et seq.) I’m confused …
November 3, 2009, 11:15 amTheBadness says:
I was prepared to hold the outrage, until the article noted:
“It’s not illegal to be naked in downtown Boulder. In fact, the city has had a long, proud history of nudity.”
Accepting that as true, I have to side with the pumpkin runners. It might have been alarming the first time; not so, after having become an annual “free for all.”
November 3, 2009, 11:17 amrarango says:
Tom: calling you out dude–you are an ageist! And probably an anti-dentite as well. :)
November 3, 2009, 11:23 amDaniel Chapman says:
Is it illegal to be naked in public in Colorado? I expect we’re not talking about a city ordinance here. Any criminal lawyers from Colorado in the house?
November 3, 2009, 11:24 amTwo-Fisted Law Student says:
The only world wherein I could buy a “the law is the law” argument is one in which police departments and prosecutors’ offices have infinite resources.
What trade-offs are being made in order to crack down on a bunch of naked idiots with squash on their heads?
(Not to mention the fact that the chief of police is well aware of what being charged with a sex offense entails, and he therefore believes that streaking merits being subject to inescapable social stigma at best and life-long registration and residency restrictions at worst. I am torn between “jackboot o’lantern” and “complete jackass o’lantern.”)
November 3, 2009, 11:28 amDaniel Chapman says:
This is what we call “low hanging fruit.” The conduct is open and notorious, and a few arrests will carry a large deterrent effect. Limited resources excuse isn’t going to fly with me.
November 3, 2009, 11:31 am!=Lawyer says:
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_13457144
November 3, 2009, 11:44 amanonymous says:
Bad phrase to use in the context of the story.
November 3, 2009, 11:47 amDaniel Chapman says:
OK, that explains it then. The state law against public nudity (which these people are clearly violating) qualifies as a sex offense, so the city of Boulder is working to draft a municipal ordinance for “pranks” of this nature.
Makes sense. Also clearly says that there’s a state law against nudity, so the original article that says “nudity isn’t illegal in Boulder” is (intentionally?) misleading.
November 3, 2009, 11:48 amBlargh says:
it’s an indecent exposure law, not an anti-nudity law. the municipal ordinance is being drafted precisely because charging these people with indecent exposure is stupid and draconian.
November 3, 2009, 11:53 amDaniel Chapman says:
Tom-A-to, Tom-ah-to.
November 3, 2009, 12:01 pmsk says:
Too many bad errors in this entire thread, post, and discussion to take it seriously. A partial list.
1) Public nudity isn’t harmless. We all know that. That’s why most communities in the country have laws against public nudity. (if you disagree, you, as a member of a democracy, enjoy the freedom to convince your fellow citizens to change the law of the land. Enjoy the fight).
2) It currently isn’t illegal to be nude in public in Boulder (maybe not-if there is in fact a state law against public nudity. In which case, the police chief is not abusing his authority). Thus, the police chief is abusing his authority.
3) It is draconian to use sex offender laws to punish non-illegal public nudity. The police chief is abusing his authority (this is true whether there’s a state law against public nudity or not).
4) If and when it is actually illegal to streak in Boulder next year, there is nothing wrong with arresting streakers-next year (“Also clearly says that there’s a state law against nudity”-if this is correct, there’s nothing wrong with arresting streakers this year, either).
5) There really aren’t any freedom/first amendment/anti-totalitarian issues in this case. Public nudity is frowned upon just about everywhere. Boulder is an exception (maybe not-if the state law is on the books). Perhaps, because the run has gotten so popular, it won’t be an exception next year. This will not be one small step to a police state. Sorry. Put the doobie down and whine about Big Brother somewhere else.
Sk
November 3, 2009, 12:10 pmCarl The EconGuy says:
In Fairfax, VA, you can get arrested for being naked making coffee in your own kitchen.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/21/man-arrested-for-being-naked-i
Clearly, there is rampant excess nekkedness across the country. I’m glad we have the police to enforce this, it’s beginning to be an important public nuisance. When will the Administration take this up with Congress?
November 3, 2009, 12:24 pmTwo-Fisted Law Student says:
Horse-apples.
Jaywalking is open and notorious too, but you don’t see special anti-jaywalking press conferences and chiefs-of-police threatening to aggregate all their moving violations and call for repeat-offender enhancements. I’m sure that would discourage jay-walking too, but nobody suggests doing this on that basis alone. Choosing which crimes to discourage necessarily involves a value judgment about which crimes “deserve” state resources,
November 3, 2009, 12:36 pmTwo-Fisted Law Student says:
[oops, cut off the end]
November 3, 2009, 12:37 pmso I think that the “excuse” (most people speaking in good faith call those “arguments”) of limited resources is perfectly applicable when those value judgments are of questionable sense/utility.
Guest14 says:
Whatever arguments there are in favor of democratic forms of governemnt, reliably reaching the correct result, from the perspective of preventing harm, isn’t one of them. The fact that a behavior is or isn’t against the law says remarkably little about how harmful it is.
November 3, 2009, 12:42 pmDavid Nieporent says:
…if there were a good reason for the law to punish people for harmless fun.
Re-read, because the article doesn’t say at all what you think it “clearly” says.
It says that there’s a state law against indecent exposure, which requires an additional element: that it be done under “circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.”
November 3, 2009, 12:53 pmOren says:
I blame God for creating man naked instead of clothed. Seriously, what was he thinking, putting all those salacious (and obviously evil) bits on the outside anyway? Intelligent design my ass, this is unintelligent design!
November 3, 2009, 1:26 pmDaniel Chapman says:
I’m confident in the jury system to make that distinction. Best of luck with your campaign to deny the citizens of Boulder the right to prosecute naked hippies.
Police cracked down and we got less naked hippies with pumpkins on their heads. The system works. Go Establishment!
November 3, 2009, 1:26 pmDavid Nieporent says:
What does your confidence in a jury have to do with your inability to read an article? Juries don’t get to make legal determinations; only factual ones. And what does any of that have to do with abuse of police authority because a few authoritarian nitwits don’t like seeing naked people?
November 3, 2009, 1:42 pmjosh says:
I want to apologize for not having read the article, which indeed indicates that the conduct might not be illegal per se in Boulder, but, in response to the comment by David Nieporent, it appears that there is an argument that the state law of indecent exposure was violated. Certainly it can be argued that the conduct was likely to cause affront or alarm to someone who saw it.
November 3, 2009, 1:56 pmfishbane says:
The impulse to arrest people for harmless fun is a sickness. If one has somehow reached adulthood without seeing another person naked, I suspect these pumpkin runners would be providing a public service to those under-served individuals.
As an aside, it strikes me as funny that so many “small government” types apparently see sufficiently great value in persecuting streakers that the cost of ongoing tracking and detention as a sex crime is a fine use of their tax dollars. The cost of a pile of cops, the paperwork, cell-time, ongoing tracking of new “sex offenders”, judicial costs, lost value of our new “criminals”, all so a few authoritarian nitwits, as David says, don’t have to see naked people. (Although I think it is closer to an assertion of societal control – I think very few of the nitwits, when they’re honest with themselves, are actually offended by the nudity. It is more that they simply want to assert ownership of local morality.)
November 3, 2009, 2:06 pmrarango says:
Re the difference between naked and nekked (or nekkid. The former is unclothed; the latter is unclothed but looking to get into trouble. At least according to my grandmother
November 3, 2009, 2:12 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Whether the circumstances would cause alarm or affront is a factual determination for the jury, Mr. Nieporent. Please stop accusing me of being illiterate because I disagree with you. kthx.
November 3, 2009, 3:20 pmA.C. says:
If there wasn’t at least the possibility of getting into trouble, there would be no reason to do this. The whole point of streaking is to get an outraged reaction of some sort.
November 3, 2009, 3:47 pmDennis N says:
The Boulder Police have a reputation and arguably some necessity for being a’oles. It is argued that it is necessary to keep the hordes of lunatic CU students from burning the town. Being a parent of a former lunatic CU student, there is some merit to that argument.
For me, the real affront is the draconian sexual offender registry laws. To put a bunch of nekkid pranksters (with a tip of the pumpkin to rarango’s grandmother) on the same legal and moral level as a child rapist is obscene. We wouldn’t be having this argument if the Chief threatened to bust them all for Disorderly Conduct or Frightening the Horses. Instead, he’s damnear threatening to open fire on the crowd.
November 3, 2009, 3:54 pmSeaDrive says:
False. We don’t all know that. I don’t know that. Of course, all public nudity is not the same. There may be harmful instances, and harmless instances. As a generality, I put streaking in the harmless category. On the other hand, nude sunbathing on the beaches of California is harmful, and clearly responsible for the failure-to-function of the government in Sacramento.
November 3, 2009, 4:19 pmjccamp says:
Without taking a position on public nudity while wearing a gourd, it should be noted that the reason for some increased enforcement this year is because Halloween is on a Saturday for the first time on years; the clocks get turned back so there’s an extra hour of drinking time; CU has a home football game, and there is talk of some former Halloween gathering at a Mall that degenerated into a (supposed) riot in 2004. The police were afraid that the confluence of factors would lead to some perfect storm-drunken Belushi-movie rampage. (story)
Personally, I don’t see a couple hundred naked runners leading to such, but then, as someone else posted, “…there is some merit to that argument (hordes of lunatic CU students etc).”
November 3, 2009, 5:56 pmgullyborg says:
If they are naked in Colorado in late October, it certainly qualifies as “exposure.” Whether indecent or not is a different matter entirely.
November 3, 2009, 6:20 pmRicardo says:
If you had indeed read the article, you would not be asking the kinds of questions and raising the issues you have. Public nudity is not illegal in Boulder: that is explicitly stated in the article. And this is not a case of a community suddenly deciding it doesn’t want this event to happen anymore. On the contrary, Boulder’s publicly elected officials have consistently refused to ban public nudity and even the police admit they get very few citizen complaints over events like this. Instead, it is one unelected bureaucrat (the chief of police) deciding unilaterally to arrest and jail anyone who participates without any clear argument that the participants are breaking the law.
Even if you think streaking at 11 pm is inherently “likely to cause affront or alarm” at the very least the police should wait for an actual civilian witness to complain before making an arrest. That’s the way noise ordinances work in most places: the police need someone who is complaining before they go to your house and tell you to turn your music down. They don’t get to drive around on their own initiative shutting down block parties just because the music is too loud for their own tastes. Same principle ought to apply here. Better yet, the police could tell people who are likely to feel affronted or alarmed to steer clear of the whole event. Or they could lobby Boulder’s democratically elected officials to pass a law against public nudity.
November 3, 2009, 9:23 pmDaniel Chapman says:
“Public nudity is not illegal in Boulder: that is explicitly stated in the article” – We’ve been over this. Yes it is. It’s illegal in the entire state.
“it is one unelected bureaucrat (the chief of police)” – And one elected politician (the District Attorney)
“the police should wait for an actual civilian witness to complain” – If I had to guess based upon human nature, people have already complained. Either way, I dispute your underlying premise that the police have to wait for a complaint in “most places,” and even if they did in “most places,” it doesn’t mean they should here.
“Or they could lobby Boulder’s democratically elected officials to pass a law against public nudity.” – They are. Right now apparently.
November 3, 2009, 11:31 pmRicardo says:
No, you are wrong. Indecent exposure is illegal in the entire state. Public nudity is not illegal in the entire state. Indecent exposure and public nudity are two different things. Indecent exposure requires an element of “likely to cause affront or alarm” and does not require the exposure to be public. Colorado also has a law against public indecency but that is only a petty offense (treated like a traffic violation, I believe) and the law requires “intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of any person.” Tellingly, this law isn’t mentioned by the police chief in the article, perhaps because it doesn’t allow him to threaten people with arrest, jail and a permanent record as a sex offender.
“At a recent forum for city council candidates, all 10 participants said they disapproved of the threatened crackdown. Even Mayor Matt Appelbaum, who supports the police, admits to a tinge of worry that arresting Halloween streakers will tarnish Boulder’s reputation as, well, Boulder…Police acknowledge they have not been flooded with pumpkin-run-related complaints, but say that’s beside the point.”
Yes, it sounds like quite the public outcry against the event. I seriously doubt that the DA would ever actually go to trial on any of these cases so his (somewhat tepid) support for the police is irrelevant. The real objective here is to threaten participants with spending the night in jail and with the embarrassment of having an arrest record for a “sex offense.”
November 4, 2009, 12:35 amDaniel Chapman says:
Around and around we go.
November 4, 2009, 7:25 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » An Advance in Criminal Law Theory -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shannon and DriveTimeHappyHour, Big Brother 11 Club. Big Brother 11 Club said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » An Advance in Criminal Law … http://bit.ly/1jG6KJ [...]
November 4, 2009, 12:06 pm