G.S.§ 14-202 provides:
Secretly peeping into room occupied by female person. Any person who shall peep secretly into any room occupied by a female person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.
What arguments might you make to challenge this statute? To defend it? Articulate those arguments based on the material we have covered in class and in the readings.
To see how the court actually dealt with this statute, click here.
Chicago Municipal Code § 8-4-015 (added June 17, 1992) states, in pertinent part:
(a) Whenever a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a criminal street gang member loitering in any public place with one or more other persons, he shall order all such persons to disperse and remove themselves from the area. Any person who does not promptly obey such an order is in violation of this section.
(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to an alleged violation of this section that no person who was observed loitering was in fact a member of a criminal street gang.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) 'Loiter' means to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose.
(2) 'Criminal street gang' means any ongoing organization, association in fact or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its substantial activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in paragraph (3), and whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.
.....
(5) 'Public place' means the public way and any other location open to the public, whether publicly or privately owned.
(e) Any person who violates this Section is subject to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 for each offense, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. In addition to or instead of the above penalties, any person who violates this section may be required to perform up to 120 hours of community service pursuant to section 1-4-120 of this Code.
To see how the Court actually dealt with this statute, click here.
Ohio Rev. Stat. § 2907.321 provides, in pertinent part:
(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following:
(1) Create, reproduce, or publish any obscene material that has a minor as one of its participants or portrayed observers; . . .
Brian Dalton, a twenty-two year old Ohio man, wrote fictitious tales of sexually abusing and torturing children in his private journal. The fourteen page journal contained details of how children were molested in a cage in the basement. There is absolutely no indication that these stories were anything but fantasy. Dalton did not expect or intend that anyone else would see them.
His probation officer found the journal in a routine search of Dalton's home. Dalton was charged with violating the statute above.
What arguments would you make in Dalton's behalf? How would you rebut them on the part of the government? Who should prevail and why?