Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

The REAL POLICE FORUM is a leading community of police officers and law enforcement professionals. The forum includes police chat and restricted areas for police officers only. The ask-a-cop area allows you to ask questions to real police officers and only verified police are allowed to respond. REALPOLICE.com also features law enforcement jobs, news, training materials and expert articles.




View Full Version : Public crossdressing?


AmberLeigh
10-02-09, 09:40 AM
Iam a 27 year old male who enjoys crossdressing. I have never commited any type of crime nor would I ever. I am concerned because a woman I met yesterday told me that a male dressing in womens clothes is illegal in most places. Is this true? I do not go out and flaunt myself. On the contrary I try to blend in like any other woman. I do not dress like a drag queen nor do I ever impose myself on anyone. I go about my business usually with my girlfriend shopping, dining and such. Any help anyone can give me as to the laws in Ohio for this would much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Amber/Ben


GoDirectly2Jail
10-02-09, 09:49 AM
Clothes are clothes. They either cover everything they are supposed to, or they don't. You'd be hard pressed to find a law that men must wear "male-style" clothing and vice versa.

Roger Dat
10-02-09, 10:42 AM
Its not illegal the only problem I would foresee possibly may be trying to gain entry into a womans fitting room or rest room.


GoDirectly2Jail
10-02-09, 11:01 AM
Its not illegal the only problem I would foresee possibly my be trying to gain entry into a womans fitting room or rest room.

+1,000. Thanks for bringing that up, because I forgot to mention it. There are places reserved for females, and regardless of how well you think you "blend in", if you have male plumbing, then you are a male in the eyes of the law. Entering women's restrooms/locker/dressing rooms is a no-no.

PapaBear
10-02-09, 11:52 AM
Do as you wish. Misrepresent yourself as you so desire. Dress in whatever clothing makes you comfortable. Blend in with all of humanity. But, don't, come near my grandchildren, attempt to influence minor children into your manner of life, expect to be accepted by the rest of society, try to change my religious and moral beliefs.

Most of all, don't call the local LEO when you are teased, set upon or harassed for your lifestyle choices. You made the choice, you live with the consequences of your actions. It is your responsibility to adapt to the moral standards of the community, it is not the community's responsibility to adapt to yours.

Good luck!

creolecop
10-04-09, 12:06 AM
Not sure about Ohio, but check your city ordinances also. Typically the dressing how ever weird/perverted is not illegal. As mentioned before try to access women only venues and you'd find yourself in the clink. In our city we have an ordinance about alarming the public. A misdemeanor and I'v only seen it once, but a guy was cross dressing and everywhere he went people thought he was a robber in costume. We had several calls regarding this "suspicious" person. After 3 calls he was informed if we were called to another place of business due to him alarming the public he'd be arrested. It is likened to walking into a bank with a president mask on. That is how the public is seeing it. People down here just don't do that cross dressing thing, so when they see it they automatically think, "oh **** that guy is about to rob the place, lets get out of here".

Creeker
10-04-09, 06:55 AM
I'd google the Ohio Code of Laws, but until you do, here's an answer:

Is there crossdressing laws in Cleveland,Oh.? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090917220547AAwb3oq)

retdetsgt
10-04-09, 10:22 AM
Rarely are there state laws against something like that. It's bumping up first amendment issues.

SnapShawt
10-04-09, 01:30 PM
Not illegal anywhere that I know of. CreoleCop's city ordinance is REALLY REALLY pushing it and would, I'm certain, be tossed in the garbage if ever seriously challenged up the court system by someone.

1. You can dress as a woman all you like.
2. You cannot enter woman-only areas and venues.
3. You cannot alter official forms of identifcation (such as a driver's license) to misrepresent your name or gender.

If someone illegally assaults you by word or act, then we would take a report and take appropriate action. Yes, you made the choice to do what you do, but that does not under any circumstances justify laws being broken against you. If someone beats you up or kills you, they go to jail and the whole "I don't agree with that lifestyle" excuse won't fly. The law applies equally in protection of you as it does in enforcement against you if necessary.

That being said, don't call us if you're mad because people taunt/tease/make fun of you or verbally state their disagreement with your choice. It's not a crime to refuse to accept you or your lifestyle, and the first amendment also protects their right to say what they feel. Illegal statement - "As soon as I see you in private I'm going to beat you up or kill you." Legal statement - "You're a pervert. I'm disgusted with what you do. Stay away from my kids and family you sicko." Understand the difference. Don't call the police for things like the second statement.

creolecop
10-04-09, 01:46 PM
Snapshawt, it's one of those laws that are really just there to help LE deal with the issue (if there is one or something BECOMES an issue). For instance this guy was just going around to different convienance stores buying like a snickers here, gum there, and here it's just a pretty weird practice, with all the 911 calls about a suspicious person that they felt were casing to rob them it became a problem thus, "alarming the public". I'm sure it could be successfully fought for many reasons, but the way I was taught and see it it's a catch 22 to deal with an immediate situation (IF it became a problem).
I guess I'd liken it to standing near a presidents motorcade yelling God should kill the president (he said God, not him, so he never threatend directly just stated God should kill him). Sure you have freedom of speech but watch how fast you end up in handcuffs and taken away. All charges might be dropped later but the situation will be handled at the moment atleast and that was the goal.

txinvestigator1
10-04-09, 02:22 PM
There are places reserved for females, and regardless of how well you think you "blend in", if you have male plumbing, then you are a male in the eyes of the law. Entering women's restrooms/locker/dressing rooms is a no-no.


I have thought about that too, and here in Texas I don't find a law that would be applicable.

In what direction are you thinking there?

creolecop
10-04-09, 04:38 PM
TX, most places have Criminal Mischief laws. Here in Louisiana that would fall under Criminal Mischief provided that no other sexual crimes as defined by law applied to the given behavior. So if he merely walked into a womens only dressing room, didn't touch women or make any comments and such, he'd be charged with criminal mischief here. A review of a few other laws could upgrade that in regards to the bathroom, I can think of a few here but I'd have to reread them before I open my mouth.

retdetsgt
10-04-09, 06:50 PM
Criminal mischief laws in Oregon all have to do with property damage only.

Causing any public alarm would fall under disorderly conduct. But cross dressing shouldn't cause enough alarm to anyone to rise to that. Entering the wrong restroom would be a trespassing offense.

If they're not causing a threat to anyone, I don't see where it's anyone's business what clothing people wear. You're getting close to arresting people based on others' opinion of them and their lifestyle than anything else. Really, what's the difference in that and wearing a Superman's suit downtown?

I can't see a correlation between holding up a sign threatening the president and some guy walking down the street in a skirt and pantyhose. The only threat the latter poses is to some social norms.

txinvestigator1
10-04-09, 07:22 PM
TX, most places have Criminal Mischief laws. Here in Louisiana that would fall under Criminal Mischief provided that no other sexual crimes as defined by law applied to the given behavior. So if he merely walked into a womens only dressing room, didn't touch women or make any comments and such, he'd be charged with criminal mischief here. A review of a few other laws could upgrade that in regards to the bathroom, I can think of a few here but I'd have to reread them before I open my mouth.

Not disbelieveing you, but can you cite or quote that law so I can see it? Texas may have something similar here that has a different name. Our criminal mischief is intentionally damaging property.

txinvestigator1
10-04-09, 07:28 PM
Causing any public alarm would fall under disorderly conduct. Yeah, we don't have a "public alarm" law other than displaying a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm. Our Disorderly requires a gesture or display that tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. I don't think a person apearing in a bathroom is a gesture or display. But I could be wrong.
Entering the wrong restroom would be a trespassing offense. I don't think it would be here. To have trespass you have to be given notice that entry to a PROPERTY was forbidden, and gender is federally protected. And a bathroom or changing room is not a property, it is a part of a property. Another part of our trespass law is a violation if you remain on property after being given notice to depart. So I guess if management told the person to leave and they refused, then a charge might be possible.

GoDirectly2Jail
10-04-09, 08:32 PM
I have thought about that too, and here in Texas I don't find a law that would be applicable.

In what direction are you thinking there?

Disorderly conduct would stick here. The law says (in part):

18.2-415. Disorderly conduct in public places.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

A. In any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed;
An officer could articulate that any male that enters a women's restroom in this area is likely to by inviting immediate violence by either the women currently in the restroom, or by their husbands waiting just outside.

There are many articles about transgender individuals securing the right to use the restroom of whatever sex they identify with, and many state legislatures are beginning to look at this very issue, however, in my opinion, allowing someone to use a multi-person restroom that is not physically of that gender is inviting trouble.

retdetsgt
10-04-09, 08:57 PM
Yeah, we don't have a "public alarm" law other than displaying a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm. Our Disorderly requires a gesture or display that tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. I don't think a person apearing in a bathroom is a gesture or display. But I could be wrong. I don't think it would be here.

Public alarm would also be fighting or generally disrupting the peace. In actuality, Dis Con has been watered down to the point it's useless anyway. There is nothing in Oregon law that would prohibit cross dressing in any form.


Another part of our trespass law is a violation if you remain on property after being given notice to depart. So I guess if management told the person to leave and they refused, then a charge might be possible.

That's the way it would happen here. As weird as Portland is, I suspect that's come up many times, but I never encountered it.

txinvestigator1
10-04-09, 09:47 PM
Disorderly conduct would stick here. The law says (in part):

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

A. In any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed" IMO, that phrase would preclude a charge for a person simply entering a bathroom, unless that person did something else DIRECTED at another individual.

creolecop
10-04-09, 10:20 PM
Txinvestigator, Below is our Criminal Mischief law. I have never had an issue with dressing rooms but I recall being told about #7 sub paragraph back in the academy and it always stuck with me. We mainly use CM for kids or even adults egging cars, toiletpapering homes, making false reports and/false statements, though false reporting of a stolen vehicle in LA is a felony.

The idea behind sub paragraph #7 is that the dressing rooms have to clearly be labled men / women. That is the business owners order to not violate the gender dressing room policy. That came into question because I recall folks asking things like why use this instead of Criminal Trespassing, or Remaining after forbidden instead of this (which are both seperate laws) and it was explained this would be used for things such as the dressing room incident. Just to note this class was also from our District attorny. Though it's been several years I still remember it. We also have our disorderly conduct. This would fit a few ordinances we have.


59. Criminal mischief

A. Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:

(1) Tampering with any property of another, without the consent of the owner, with the intent to interfere with the free enjoyment of any rights of anyone thereto, or with the intent to deprive anyone entitled thereto of the full use of the property.

(2) Giving of any false alarm of fire or notice which would reasonably result in emergency response.

(3) Driving of any tack, nail, spike or metal over one and one-half inch in length into any tree located on lands belonging to another, without the consent of the owner, or without the later removal of the object from the tree.

(4) The felling, topping, or pruning of trees or shrubs within the right-of-way of a state highway, without prior written approval of the chief engineer of the Department of Transportation and Development or his designated representative, provided prior written approval is not required for agents or employees of public utility companies in situations of emergency where the person or property of others is endangered.

(5) Giving of any false report or complaint to a sheriff, or his deputies, or to any officer of the law relative to the commission of, or an attempt to commit, a crime.

(6) Throwing any stone or any other missile in any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, open space, public square, or enclosure, or throwing any stone, missile, or other object from any place into any street, avenue, road, highway, alley, open space, public square, enclosure, or at any train, railway car, or locomotive.

(7) Taking temporary possession of any part or parts of a place of business, or remaining in a place of business after the person in charge of such business or portion of such business has directed such person to leave the premises and to desist from the temporary possession of any part or parts of such business.

(8) The communication to any person for the purpose of disrupting any public utility water service, when the communication causes any officer, employee, or agent of the service reasonably to be placed in sustained fear for his or another person's safety, or causes the evacuation of a water service building, or causes any discontinuance of any water services.

(9) The discharging of any firearm at a train, locomotive, or railway car.

(10) Repealed by Acts 2008, No. 8, 2.

B. Whoever commits the crime of criminal mischief shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned for not more than six months in the parish jail, or both.

Amended by Acts 1956, No. 232, 1; Acts 1958, No. 174, 1; Acts 1960, No. 77, 1; Acts 1963, No. 97, 1; Acts 1968, No. 647, 1; Acts 1977, No. 126, 1; Acts 1983, No. 428, 1; Acts 1986, No. 164, 1; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 118, 1; Acts 1995, No. 882, 1; Acts 2006, No. 11, 1; Acts 2008, No. 8, 2.

GoDirectly2Jail
10-04-09, 10:35 PM
IMO, that phrase would preclude a charge for a person simply entering a bathroom, unless that person did something else DIRECTED at another individual.

What about any other individual already present in the restroom? Owing to the layout and limited access to such a room, it could be argued that the entry is directed at others already inside, and such entry recklessly creates the risk of causing public annoyance or alarm.

txinvestigator1
10-04-09, 10:53 PM
59. Criminal mischief

A. Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:


(7) Taking temporary possession of any part or parts of a place of business, or remaining in a place of business after the person in charge of such business or portion of such business has directed such person to leave the premises and to desist from the temporary possession of any part or parts of such business.


B. Whoever commits the crime of criminal mischief shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned for not more than six months in the parish jail, or both.

Amended by Acts 1956, No. 232, 1; Acts 1958, No. 174, 1; Acts 1960, No.

Humm, from my uneducated reading that law, a violation would only occur after being told to leave. ?? And do you "take possession" of a part of a business simply by occupying space there?

txinvestigator1
10-04-09, 10:54 PM
What about any other individual already present in the restroom? Owing to the layout and limited access to such a room, it could be argued that the entry is directed at others already inside, and such entry recklessly creates the risk of causing public annoyance or alarm.

As Murtaugh liked to say, "that's pretty thin". ;)

creolecop
10-05-09, 01:20 AM
Txinvestigator, we have two statutes in our state criminal code that is a catch all. They both have subsections with "vague" language. This one and our disturbing the peace. Our traffic statutes have one called "careless operation" it's a catch all. I agree there is no state law that specifically spells out dressing rooms and bathrooms, those are all found on the city/parish ordinance levels. I was told long ago that the sign men and women and the fact that a reasonable person would believe that they are not to enter a womens dressing room if they were a man and vice versa would make it fit. I'v never used this for a dressing room case as I have never had one, but I was taught by our DA that this could be used for that. Thats why the law says part or parts of a business. They are taking possession of the dressing room which is part of the business. I definately see the argument on the other side and if I ever had to I'd use our parish or city ordinance instead of this, but this is suppose to cover that among other things that could "be made to fit".


For instance I'v used this one succesfully many times when looking for a pretext stop when hunting dope on the streets and I find a taker I want. If they are driving with the seat all the way back into the backseat so low it looks like a toddler is driving, I stop them under this statute (see below). Due to the fact that I dont' feel they can operate the vehicle in a prudent manner and be able to observe out of all windows and mirrors or far enough in front of the car due to the eye sight level over the dashboard and steering wheel. The law was not made for this, but I articulate it in court and make it fit. It's our catch all traffic charge; (for the record no when hunting dope I don't automatically go for the guy with the seat back in the trunk):

58. Careless operation

Any person operating a motor vehicle on the public roads of this state shall drive in a careful and prudent manner, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such a manner shall constitute careless operation.

Added by Acts 1972, No. 567, 1; Acts 1992, No. 364, 1.

GoDirectly2Jail
10-05-09, 11:35 AM
As Murtaugh liked to say, "that's pretty thin". ;)

Yeah, right before Riggs shot a guy and they fell in the pool... :cool:

retdetsgt
10-05-09, 12:00 PM
Txinvestigator, we have two statutes in our state criminal code that is a catch all. They both have subsections with "vague" language.

The Oregon courts cleaned out all the "vague language" statutes decades ago. In fact, I remember in the early 70's, someone arrested a guy for wearing a jacket that said "FU<K" on it for disorderly conduct. The DA couldn't show that wearing that jacket alone did more than offend the sensibilities of some members of the public. The whole Dis Con statute went out the window.

They rewrote it, but it's hard to use it anymore. Most things that it would violate are covered by other laws that are easier to prosecute.

I admit that Oregon is liberal and is very protective of free speech and frankly, I don't see a huge downside to that part. I personally don't think offending someone should be a criminal matter. If some guy wants to wear a frilly dress and wig down the street, it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

If someone's appearance alone is so offensive that it's a crime, then a lot of fat people I've seen shouldn't be allowed on the street.

Creeker
10-05-09, 10:12 PM
Just to ad to the conversation, in a Quito Ecuador bus station, the only bathroom available was a communal one. It was huge, and the only dignity involved was a waist high wall that separated the Urinals from the stalls on the opposite side of the room.

It was a shock to me at 18.:uhoh:

I throw this in to offer that while our Society uses separate rooms, others don't.

I don't think Trespassing charges would fly here. There must first be a notice of some type, by my recollection.

And for Disorderly to fly, it probably would here, but I take into consideration that some mothers will not allow their young boys to leave their side in public, and that includes the restroom. I have a friend that is IMHO overly cautious with her 10 year old, and I have escorted him to the mens room on a few occasions, like he was a VIP... just so he wouldn't run into the OP:)

retdetsgt
10-06-09, 12:50 AM
Just to ad to the conversation, in a Quito Ecuador bus station, the only bathroom available was a communal one. It was huge, and the only dignity involved was a waist high wall that separated the Urinals from the stalls on the opposite side of the room.

It was a shock to me at 18.:uhoh:



Probably not unlike me when I walked into a gay bar in New Orleans at the ripe age of 18.... I ain't never seen nuthin' like that! :eek: