People v. O'Gorman
| Decision Date | 25 May 1937 |
| Citation | 8 N.E.2d 862,274 N.Y. 284 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. O'GORMAN et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Rose O'Gorman and another were convicted, in the Court of Special Sessions, of violating section 7 of General Ordinance No. 7 of the Common Council of the City of Yonkers, prohibiting appearing upon a public street or thoroughfare in any other than ‘customary street attire,’ and, from a judgment of the County Court of Westchester County affirming such conviction, accused appeal, on permission granted by a judge of the Court of Appeals.
Reversed, and information dismissed, as to each accused. Appeal from Westchester County Court.
J. Howard Carter, of New York City, and Paul L. Bleakley, of Yonkers, for appellants.
Leonard G. McAneny, Corp. Counsel, of Yonkers (Harold T. Garrity, of Yonkers, of counsel), for the People.
Rose O'Gorman and William Matthias were going through Yonkers on June 21, 1936, when they were arrested because of the clothes they had on or did not have on. The girl had no ‘white sandals, no stockings, yellow short pants and a colored halter, with a yellow jacket over it and no hat’; the boy or young man ‘had on white sneakers, white anklets, short socks, yellow trunks, short pants, a blue polo shirt, brown and white belt, no hat.’ The arresting officer ‘thought they were ordinary hikers, we have to contend with each Sunday out in that section.’ On making the arrest the officer said to them, ‘Well, you haven't got what we term ‘customary street attire,’ and haven't a skirt on.'
The officer did his duty if the ordinance under which he was acting is legal, as the courts, not the policeman, determine these matters.
The ordinance of the Common Council of the city of Yonkers, approved July 18, 1935, reads:
As these defendants did not have on bathing costume, that part of the ordinance which forbids appearance ‘in any other than customary street attire’ is the law for the violation of which they were arrested and subsequently convicted.
Can the city pass such a law? Indecency on the street of course may be restrained; if people like to walk around naked they must stay in the house and not appear on the streets. Tastes may differ, but we are all agreed on this. When it comes to the kind and sufficiency of clothes one must wear to appear decently in public we of the law have generally left such matters to the good sense and force of public opinion. The law of the proper thing to do is not written in a book but rules most of our living. To meet the cases of persons who insist upon being conspicuous by exposing too much of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capelle v. Makowski
...This basic tenet was quoted with approval by the courts in invalidating an ordinance requiring "customary street attire", People v. O'Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284, 8 N.E.2d 862, in upholding part of the Election Law, People v. Lang, 36 N.Y.2d 366, 368 N.Y.S.2d 492, 329 N.E.2d 176; and very recently......
-
People v. Carillo
...People v. Benc, 288 N.Y. 318, 43 N.E.2d 61; People v. Shakun, 251 N.Y. 107, 167 N.E. 187, 64 A.L.R. 1066; People v. O'Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284, 8 N.E.2d 862, 110 A.L.R. 1231.' It is to be observed that in the cited case of People v. Benc, 288 N.Y. 318, 43 N.E.2d 61, the Court of Appeals reverse......
-
State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 31656.
...anything it cannot be enforced. United States v. Capital Traction Co., 34 App.D.C. 592, 19 Ann.Cas. 68; People v. O'Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284, 8 N.E.2d 862, 110 A.L.R. 1231; State ex rel. Hickey v. Levitan, 190 Wis. 646, 210 N.W. 111, 48 A.L.R. 434; Mayhew v. Nelson, 346 Ill. 381, 178 N.E. 921; ......
-
Trio Distributor Corp. v. City of Albany
...56 N.Y.S.2d 545; Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 325 Mass. 519, 91 N.E.2d 666; Glendale Coal Co. v. Douglas, 193 Ind. 73, 137 N.E. 615; People v. O'Gorman, supra; People v. Grogan, supra; 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 3d ed., Vol. 5, § 15.24.' This ordinance does not define what peddlers ......