top
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Central Valley | Womyn
Sacto D.A. won't prosecute bare-breasted women...
by SUN
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 2:24 AM
"The conduct here clearly had a political, not a sexual, intent. " [so] "Under the circumstances, we will file no criminal charges in this matter. "
SACRAMENTO D.A. WON'T PROSECUTE
Ms. Glaser and Ms. Love

( bare-breasted female political demonstrators,
busted by CHP on 7 November 2005 at state capitol)

.......
[ Sacto District Attorney's office tells CHP:
"Under the circumstances, we will file no criminal charges in this matter. " ]
...........

November 15, 2005

[to ] Lt. Allen Stallman
California Highway Patrol
1801 - 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: File No. 51378AN; suspect Sheryl Lynn Glaser
File No. 51379AN; suspect Renee Suzanne Love

Dear Lt. Stallman:

This concerns the above cases, submitted to our office for prosecution.
In the course of a political demonstration on the grounds of the State Capitol,
both suspects completely exposed their breasts.
They were arrested for violating Penal Code section 314 (indecent exposure),
647(a) (lewd act in a public place),
and Government Code section 14685 (violation of CHP regulation on state property).

Both section 314 and section 647(a) require a sexual intent.
Nudity without sexual intent does not violate these statutes.
See Robins v. County of Los Angeles (1966) 248 Cal.App.2d 1, at 10-11; Barrows v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1970) 1 Cal.3d 821; Boreta Enterprises v. Department of Alcholic Beverage Control (1970) 2 Cal.3d 85, at 99; In re Smith (1972) 7 Cal.3d 362, at 366; Pryor v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1979) 25 Cal.3d 238, at 255-57; In re Dallas W. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 937.
The conduct here clearly had a political, not a sexual, intent.

As to Government Code section 14685, no CHP regulation for the use of state property
prohibits mere nudity.
The permit for the demonstration was sought and granted in the name of the organization "Breasts Not Bombs." The officer who granted the permit discussed breast exposure with the permit applicant, and the permit itself refers to "any person who exposes private parts," but both the pre-permit discussion and the written permit expressly referred to violations of sections 314 and 647(a). Since the conduct here did not violate those statutes, we do not believe a jury would conclude the applicant either mislead [misled] the officer who issued the permit, or violated the terms of the permit.

Under the circumstances, we will file no criminal charges in this matter.

Sincerely yours,
JAN SCULLY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ALBERT C. LOCHER Assistant Chief Deputy
The permit states, "Any person who exposes private parts is subject to arrest per Calif. Penal Code sections 314 and 647a."

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SACRAMENTO COUNTY
JAN SCULLY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CYNTHIA G. BESEMER CHIEF DEPUTY
P.O. Box 749 * 901 G Street * Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 874-6218
FAX (916) 874-5340

........

[Notes by Senior Unlimited Nudes (SUN) of San Francisco:
The text above has been edited slightly.
For clarity, SUN has added line breaks which weren't in the original letter;
and has inserted "[misled]" after "mislead" (to indicate past tense).
Also, some changes occurred when SUN translated this file into Plain Text.
The original Word (?) document may have included an embedded photo.

Media inquiries should be directed to:
Albert C. Locher, Assistant Chief Deputy, Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento County.]
..........
by Indybay
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 2:36 AM


Sacramento, CA:
Outside California state capitol building,
CHP busted Sheryl Glaser, 45, and Renee Love, 40,
for bare-breasted political demonstration.


http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1781488.php


http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1782067.php

by SUN
(SaveFreedom [at] yahoogroups.com) Monday Nov 28th, 2005 8:02 AM
Dear Mendocino Beacon,

In addition to their political messages (against war, etc.),
the "Breasts Not Bombs" activists are also
reminding CHP and state leaders that the human breast isn't obscene.

-- Senior Unlimited Nudes (SUN),
POB 426937-SUN,
SF, CA 94142-6937

[ LTE emailed to Beacon on Monday morning, 28 Nov. 2005 ]
by Why?
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 7:01 AM
The SF Chronicle has published two original articles on the Sacramento protest, so far -- on Nov. 5 and Nov. 8. Plus one LTE.

But the Chron hasn't YET published a story about
whether the Sacramento D.A. will (or won't) press charges
against the two topfree demonstrators.

Why?

Perhaps the top D.A. hasn't yet decided?
[ The letter above wasn't signed by the (elected) D.A. ,
but by an (appointed) assistant.
So perhaps the decision isn't final?
Could politics affect the D.A.'s judgment?
]

Maybe we won't know, for sure,
until the defendants
(who live in Mendocino county)
actually appear in a Sacramento county court?



-- puzzled,
Wednesday morning
(while listening on public radio to the
Prevaricator in Chief),
30 Nov. 2005
by © 2005 Daily Press
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 5:38 PM

[ addendum to "Get Serious!" column,
dailypress.com, Hampton Roads, VA ]


Pricey catalogs sell righteous indignation
Published November 27 2005
[......]

A "GET SERIOUS!"
NEWS UPDATE
Back in September, this column reported on four women being arrested in Moravia, N.Y., for going topless - excuse us, the p.c. term is "topfree" - in a protest for bare-chest equal rights. Since you are all interested in this vital constitutional issue, which the Senate Judiciary Committee will no doubt be questioning Judge Alito about, I must tell you that alert reader Artie Bigley has e-mailed me an article from the local newspaper, stating that charges against the women were dismissed.
But this month, we had two women arrested for de-shirting themselves at a "Breasts, Not Bombs" demonstration in Sacramento, Calif.
Where will it all end? We're afraid to find out.
.......

Tony Gabriele can be reached [....] by e-mail at
tgabriele @ dailypress. com
.........
Copyright © 2005 Daily Press

.................................................

REPLY by SUN:
For New York state cases on this issue,
which has been litigated since the 1980s (or so),
please see Canadian website
http://tera.ca
....
As for Sacto [Sacramento] case,
we think charges will be dropped.
-- SUN,
Nov. 30
by links
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 5:43 PM


NUDOPHOBIA
(gymnophobia),

breastphobia
(mammaphobia),

erotophobia,
femaphobia,
phallophobia
(penis-phobia),
torsophobia,
etc. --
IndyBay links,
2004 - 2005:
....

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/09/1697160.php
(Did "nudophobia" cause SF death?,
30 September 2004)
.....
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1697972.php
(More nudophobia in SF's Castro,
05 October 2004)
......
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1704993.php
(FCC airheads create false "videality" of SF,
12 November 2004 )
......................
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1708219.php
(How fascists use nudophobia as a power tool,
03 December 2004 )
...
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1712189.php
( Georgia nudophobes, 1 January 2005 )
.........
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1712695.php
(Nudophobes threaten Hollywood, 4 January 2005)
.........

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1714927.php
(Texas breastphobes vs. mural of topfree Eve, 15 January 2005)
...............

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1715728.php
( Are redstaters nudophobic and homophobic? Green Bay?
19 January 2005 )

...........

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1716313.php
(Powerful breastphobe quits FCC, 21 January 2005 )
..................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1723816.php

(Koko faces breastphobia, homophobia, gorillaphobia,
26 February 2005 )

...........................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1736124.php
( Phallophobia in Laramie, Wyoming,
5 May 2005)

...............................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1742612.php
( Sacrilege and stripping- "worse than death"?,
27 May 2005 )
...............................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1747079.php

( World Naked Bike Ride 2005,
12 June 2005 )
...........................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1748971.php

( political nakity meets nudophobia,
22 June 2005 )

.........................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1749954.php

( Pakistani jihadi claims women interrogators were naked,
28 June 2005 )

.......................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/07/1755352.php

( Venice displays official torsophobia,
24 July 2005 )

........................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1781488.php

( SACto mammaphobes try to squelch topfree protest,
6 November 2005 )

[ Please also see Sacramento updates:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1782067.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1786061.php ]

.........................

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1782863.php

( phallophobia invades Castro district,
11 November 2005 )

..........................


by Smythe
Friday Jan 27th, 2006 1:32 PM
Why not let ladies go "topfree" and bare their breasts. Men have been doing it for years.