Man Strips to Underwear at RIC Security Checkpoint

Disordely Conduct for Washington stat

RCW 9A.84.030
Disorderly conduct.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or

(d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet of:

(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and

(ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.


[2007 c 2 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.84.030.]

apps.leg.wa.gov...

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by zuul000

 

I thought I heard that at school one day, because someone asked why people could search you when you enter the courthouse.

That varies on jurisdiction but, in California at least, they're considered "administrative searches" which is similar to most states. You can be searched as an "administrative procedure" if a three-part test is met - (a) the search is done for some reason other than gathering evidence, (2) must be related to a compelling government interest, (3) must be no more intrusive than the minimal level necessary to achieve the compelling purpose. A court, being a place that - on any given day - has a great number of criminals gathered within its walls, greater than the general outdoors, and the absolute security of the courts being necessary for the state itself to operate (the ability or inability of a court to convene is one of the litmus tests to determining the validity of a martial law decree), a qualification of the 4th amendment is implied and assumed.

In California this was decided in Estes vs. Rowland where a woman went to visit her son being held in the court detention facility in Marin County in 1992 and was told she'd only be admitted if she consented to a strip-search. She refused and was not admitted, subsequently filed suit and was awarded $175,000. In that decision the court determined there were three criteria under which administrative searches could be applied (above) and a strip search exceeded them.

Originally posted by stinavampI almost got my husband to rock the banana hammock with me.

We'll take a rain check on that photo.

Originally posted by stinavamp


(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or

That's what they'll get you on. A nearly-naked woman standing at the head of a line in a place where nearly-naked women generally don't congregate is likely to slow the line, AKA obstruct pedestrian traffic. Then they just need to show intent which a forum search of ATS should wrap-up.

reply to post by zuul000


Well even so I will take my misdeamenor charge with pride. It's not like I've never spent a night in jail and these days through our court system they'll most likely just fine me and try to stick me on probation. Money is all they want. Besides by the time I do it it will be old news. I'm pretty sure this guy may start a trend.