Public crossdressing?

[GoDirectly2Jail]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

§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]

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]

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]

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

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

[retdetsgt]

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]

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]

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: