Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.

Article 4, Declaration of the Rights of Man, adopted by France Aug. 26 1789.

From The Paper Chase.

The term "prostitution" shall be construed to include the offering or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire, and shall also be construed to include the offering or receiving of the body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse without hire. 

• Indecent exposure requires willful exposure of private parts in a public place in the presence of persons of the opposite sex.  (obviously with same sex couples there is no violation, but it is unclear if the display of  private parts only to the person you are um ... engaged with  would be enough.  An obliging public sex partner could always adopt the Sgt. Shultz defense, "I see nothing.")

• Crime against nature has never applied to only acts committed in public and it would be a stretch for courts to suddenly read that requirement into the statute.  The statute could be re-drafted by the legislature to prohibit sex acts in public but it would take the kind of judicial creativity usually frowned upon to change the long-accepted interpretation.
• Occupying a motel room for an immoral purpose (a misdemeanor) probably is questionable after Lawrence v. Kansas.  It obviously requires use of a room as well. The N.C. Court of Appeals ruled to "immoral purpose" was unconstitutionally vague in 1978, but the statute was never repealed or amended.
• Fornication or adultery requires only lewdly and lasciviously associating, bedding or cohabiting together so that statute is probably vulernable to constitutional challenge.

None of these morals laws really covers the situation of sex acts other than intercourse for hire or public sex activity.  So for the time being, it appears that it is legal to hire someone for "everything but intercourse" or sex activity in public as long as everthing remains covered.

The N.C. General Assembly (motto: "Hey you kids, cut that out!") will probably have to take this issue head on.  Luckily for them I already have the perfect solution.  My proposed statute has everything a bill needs to make it into law today, namely:

• A catchy acronym: Bipartisian Lawmakers Outlawing Weird Moral Errors, the BLOWME Act.
• A cute name, "Floozy's Law" should do.

The actual text of the bill is irrelevant, after all you did not need to actually read the USA PATRIOT Act to know that it was a good thing.  I would love to hear this in court, "Mr. Defendant you are charged with violating the BLOWME Act, how did you plead?"  It could work its way into police jargon: "Unit 2202, see the man corner of Peeples and 23rd St. about possible BLOWME violation." Or "Hey officer, what's the charge?" "BLOWME."

Interesting things I ran across while looking all this up:

• Best unintentional humor in N.C. General Statutes: "Statute defining a nuisance as erection, establishment, continuance, maintenance, use, ownership or leasing of any building or place for purpose of prostitution is not unconstitutionally vague  ..."
• Biggest Huh: It is illegal to use indecent or profane language in a loud and boisterous manner, in the hearing of two or more persons on any public road or highway.  This is illegal everywhere in N.C. except  Pitt and Swain counties.
• Best use of "irrespective" and "nipple" in the same sentence: "a woman may breast feed in any public or private location where she is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breast feeding. " (indecent exposure statute).

Comment

I just filed an appellate brief in a case I have been working on for some months now.  My joy at having that irksome task behind me is tempered by the knowledge that others are soon due.  So as my thoughts turn to happy hour, I remembered this clip from Walker Percy that a friend recently sent me.  It comes from Signposts In A Strange Land, in 1975:

Not only should connoisseurs of Bourbon not read this article, neither should persons preoccupied with the perils of alcoholism, cirrhosis, esophageal hemorrhage, cancer of the palate, and so forth--all real dangers. I, too, deplore these afflications. But, as between these evils and the aesthetic of Bourbon drinking, that is, the use of Bourbon to warm the heart, to reduce the anomie of the late twentieth century, to cut the cold phlegm of Wednesday afternoons, I choose the aesthetic. What, after all, is the use of not having cancer, cirrhosis, and such, if a man comes home from work every day at five-thirty to the exurbs of Montclair or Memphis and there is the grass growing and the little family looking not quite at him but just past the side of his head, and there's Cronkite on the tube and the smell of pot roast in the living room, and inside the house and outside in the pretty exurb has settled the noxious particles and the sadness of the old dying Western world, and him thinking: 'Jesus, is this it? Listening to Cronkite and the grass growing?'

Percy also gives advice on the mixing of mint juleps:

"Cud'n Walker's Uncle Will's Favorite Mint Julep Receipt."

You need excellent Bourbon whiskey; rye or Scotch will not do. Put half an inch of sugar in the bottom of the glass and merely dampen it with water. Next, very quickly--and here is the trick in the procedure--cruch your ice, actually powder it, preferably with a wooden mallet, so quickly that it remains dry, and, slipping two sprigs of fresh mint against the inside of the glass, cram the ice in right to the brim, packing it with your hand.
Finally, fill the glass, which apparently has no room left for anything else, with Bourbon, the older the better, and grate a bit of nutmeg on the top. The glass will frost immediately. Then settle back in your chair for half an hour of cumulative bliss."

I won't try to compete with someone who knows Bourbon like Cud'n Percy, but here's my favorite mint julep recipe.

Get some fresh mint leaves.  Mint plants are easy to grow so you should already have one in your back yard.  Plant one and it will take over lesser plants.  Get a cup of water and a cup of sugar.  Bring water and sugar to a boil.  Turn off the heat and put in a sizable handful of mint leaves.  Leave them in until the mixture cools.  Strain the leaves out and squeeze them dry into the syrup.  Put syrup in fridge overnight.

Get some metal mint julep glasses.  Crush ice finely as you can (but powdering is not necessary).  Put 1 or 2 tablespoons of the syrup over the ice and fill the remaining space with Bourbon.  Repeat as needed until phlegm recedes.

Even in the South, mint juleps are not enjoyed nearly often enough.

One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly ... and with a willingness to accept the penalty

My co-workers hinted to me that this would be no ordinary meeting, but I hadn’t expected such a charge in the air.

I've always been extremely angered by the comic strip Family Circus.

It is neither funny, nor insightful, nor charming. It sucks.

The author of this pretty good parody tells how it ruined his life:

After all my years as a cartoonist, working and studying to master the form, it's depressing to think that The Family Circus is still my best selling product. ... I've recieved more recognition for this than all of my other works combined. This sloppy little comic has cursed my entire career. I can almost imagine the first line in my obituary. It is my Citizen Kane, if Citizen Kane was a piece of crap.

Apparently the badness of The Family Circus is such that it smites anyone who dares mock it.

"... there's cold beer in the cooler and you can bring your dog inside.  A man can't ask for more."

"I am man, I own a Weber. You 'gas guys' should just go in with the ladies and make potato salad."

Ewing-Williams opened Kaukab’s sweater in the front, which exposed the camisole that Kaukab wore underneath her sweater. Ewing-Williams viewed Kaukab’s camisole and patted over it. Ewing-Williams then covered her hand with Kaukab’s camisole and placed her hand inside Kaukab’s bra, patting down her breasts. She then patted the rest of Kaukab’s upper body over the camisole. Following the upper body search, Ewing-Williams patted the front, back and  sides of Kaukab’s thighs and the front of her lower legs. She unzipped Kaukab’s boots and felt around inside her boots over her socks. She then patted the backs of Kaukab’s legs, buttocks and crotch. Ewing-Williams unbuttoned and unzipped Kaukab’s pants and viewed Kaukab’s underwear. She placed her hand inside Kaukab’s pants, patting her over her underwear around her lower abdominal area and crotch. Ewing-Williams zipped Kaukab’s pants back up and ran her hands over Kaukab’s entire crotch area again. She then pushed on Kaukab’s crotch. Ewing-Williams forced Kaukab’s legs farther apart and said, “spread your legs.” She then conducted a more extensive search of Kaukab’s crotch area.

Kaukab then asked if she could go, and the security team said she was free to leave.  More detail is in the court opinion.

The problem here is too many Barneys and no Andys.  We become a nation of Barney Fifes.  Barney couldn't wait to reach for the bullet in his pocket and start frisking people.  Sheriff Taylor was the voice of reason.  Andy would have let the lady take off her hajib in private and would have brought in Helen, Aunt Bea or Ellie for the search.  There would have been no undue attention paid to breasts or crotch.  Barney and Andy would have waited outside.  These days the Barneys are running things. 

Wherever you are hurry back Andy, Barney's making a mess of things.

"You'll have a young man, and he shouldn't be doing this, but he's raising marijuana in the woods. That makes him a `distributor.' And he's got his dad's hunting rifle in the car, he forgot about it and he wants to do target practice, that makes him `armed.' He's looking at 15 years," the justice said. "An 18-year-old doesn't know how long 15 years is. And it's not so much the sentencing guidelines, it's the mandatory minimums. That's the problem."

Reported in Las Vegas Review Journal editorial.

That is the result of a statute that requires a minimum sentence (usually 5, 10, 15, 20 years, or in come cases life), regardless of the circumstances upon conviction.  Once the court determines that a mandatory minimum applies that is the sentence even if the guideline sentence would not be as long.  In my experience mandatory minimums frequenly impose a longer sentence than the guidelines would have if there was no minimum.

The Sentencing Guidelines on the other hand, usually result in a range based on the offense level (1 through 43) and criminal history category (1 through 6).  For example, if someone attempted to bribe a public official with less than $2000 and had no criminal record, he would be at offense level 10 and criminal history category six.  The judge could sentence him to from 6 to 12 months in prison.  There is less consensus that the guidelines are overly harsh, but in some areas they are pretty draconian.  My personal beefs with the guidelines is that they are overly complicated and require that the defendants sentence be lengthened based on information that was not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

We've established that to the point that if you want to go there one more time you'll probably see 13 collective people throwing up. We have established that two went to the front door. Now what we want to know is what happened next. Okay

He said he was just standing watch over his sister's house as any good male would. Not in relation to any nefarious dealings. So you need to phrase your question based on the testimony

No mention about whether "any good male" would also fire up a blunt while on guard duty.  Later the judge berated the defense attorney for asking a question about a piece of evidence that was not admissible:

Then you deliberately went and asked a question using the information from that, which is not only improper, unethical, but also in flagrant violation of what the Court ruled. I'm at my wit's end.

The appellate court did toss the trial judge a bone:

We feel certain the learned trial judge did not intend to prejudice the defense or in any manner belittle defense counsel; however, “when these inadvertences occur, they must be corrected, as they could have conveyed to the jury the impression of judicial leaning.

Calling the comments "inadvertent" is like saying Saddam Hussein is "out of the office for a few days."

In other Judge Hill news, the State Judicial Standards Division has recommended that she be censured for calling an attorney insensitive heartless and incompetent and reaching out to touch a deputy's genitals, according to the N&O.  Maybe you have to actually touch genitalia before the commission recommends removal from the bench.

Here's the briefs:  Defense and State.