The Volokh Conspiracy - Dallas School Trustee Recommends City-Wide Ordinance Banning Low-Rise Pants in Public:

The Dallas Morning News reports:

A proposal to ban saggy pants in Dallas gained steam Wednesday as City Council members discussed how to deal with the popular clothing trend.

Several council members voiced support and asked the city attorney's office to research whether such a rule is enforceable.

Dallas school trustee Ron Price recommended the ban at Wednesday's council meeting, following through on a plan he announced Tuesday. Mr. Price wants the city to create an ordinance to allow police to cite people who wear their pants too low.

"Too low," he said, allows too much underwear to show....

The article doesn't mention any proposed language for the ordinance, likely since no ordinance has yet been formally proposed. But I wonder just how the city council would implement this, even if it decides it wants to. Would swimsuits qualify? Would there then be an exception for waterparks, public pools, and sidewalks on the way from the parking lot to the public pool? How about for people walking in their swim trunks from a private pool to their house, maybe stopping in their driveway to get something from their car? Kids, including teenagers, running through the sprinklers on a hot day?

Or would the ordinance try to distinguish boxers/briefs worn to swim from boxers/briefs worn for other purposes? How exactly? Based on the kind of fabric? Or is it that it's OK to wear a boxer or a brief if you're wearing it alone, OK if you're covering it up with pants, but not OK if it's halfway in between? Would there be an exception for people who are bending over sloppily, or people whose T-shirt rides up when they stretch for something, exposing an underwear waistband?

Is this really what the Dallas City Council should be doing?

Thanks to Marc Levin for the pointer.

UPDATE: Some commenters were confused, so I ought to clarify: The school trustee is the one suggesting the ordinance, but the ordinance is not limited to schools -- it would cover public places throughout the city. (I've revised the title to point to that more clearly.)

	[Eugene Volokh, August 28, 2006 at 5:06pm] Trackbacks Dallas School Trustee Recommends City-Wide Ordinance Banning Low-Rise Pants in Public: The Dallas Morning News reports: A proposal to ban saggy pants in Dallas gained steam Wednesday as City Council members discussed how to deal with the popular clothing trend. Several council members voiced support and asked the city attorney's office to research whether such a rule is enforceable. Dallas school trustee Ron Price recommended the ban at Wednesday's council meeting, following through on a plan he announced Tuesday. Mr. Price wants the city to create an ordinance to allow police to cite people who wear their pants too low. "Too low," he said, allows too much underwear to show.... The article doesn't mention any proposed language for the ordinance, likely since no ordinance has yet been formally proposed. But I wonder just how the city council would implement this, even if it decides it wants to. Would swimsuits qualify? Would there then be an exception for waterparks, public pools, and sidewalks on the way from the parking lot to the public pool? How about for people walking in their swim trunks from a private pool to their house, maybe stopping in their driveway to get something from their car? Kids, including teenagers, running through the sprinklers on a hot day? Or would the ordinance try to distinguish boxers/briefs worn to swim from boxers/briefs worn for other purposes? How exactly? Based on the kind of fabric? Or is it that it's OK to wear a boxer or a brief if you're wearing it alone, OK if you're covering it up with pants, but not OK if it's halfway in between? Would there be an exception for people who are bending over sloppily, or people whose T-shirt rides up when they stretch for something, exposing an underwear waistband? Is this really what the Dallas City Council should be doing? Thanks to Marc Levin for the pointer. UPDATE: Some commenters were confused, so I ought to clarify: The school trustee is the one suggesting the ordinance, but the ordinance is not limited to schools -- it would cover public places throughout the city. (I've revised the title to point to that more clearly.)