TROUBL

In 2007, The Congressional Quarterly named Flint, Michigan the third most dangerous city in America. The city, which is home to only about 120,000 people, has seen such a sharp decline in industry and jobs that it recently laid off 48 police officers and closed the city jail despite its high crime rate, according to Newsweek. And yet, with all the things one would hope worries the police force, the biggest news from David Dicks, the city’s new interim police chief, is sagging pants.

Dicks, who took over control of the city’s police on June 2, waited only two weeks to put out a department memorandum to the city’s police officers ordering that they begin stopping, searching, and possibly arresting men who wear their jeans below the waist to show their underwear or buttocks. Under his guidelines, slightly baggy pants with the waistband of underwear showing only get a warning, but pants pulled down below the butt, or any exposure of the butt at all, are both punishable with a $500 fine or 93 days to a full year in prison.

The ACLU of Michigan has issued a letter to the self-named “Chief of Fashion Police” Dicks (whose name seems strangely appropriate), stating that the “new practice of stopping, searching and threatening young men with disorderly conduct for wearing ‘saggy pants’ is a blatant violation of the United States Constitution,” and demanding that the law be repealed by July 21. Dicks, however, has tried to dodge the allegations of constitutional rights violations by responding that “this immoral ‘self expression’ goes beyond freedom of expression; it rises to the crime of indecent exposure/disorderly persons.” While Flint’s legislation only names the exposure of genitals as indecent exposure, Dicks apparently finds barely-covered posteriors just as offensive and thinks his fashion sense should be universal.

If he is concerned with “immorality,” Dicks could make matching laws for women, criminalizing thongs showing above waistlines, short skirts, or low-cut, cleavage-baring tops. Or, if he is truly concerned with the safety of his citizens, he could crack down on actual violent crime instead of people who wear their pants low. But, rather than changing crime rates, it seems inevitable that this law will only change where criminals wear their pants. Sure, some people don’t like seeing boxer shorts as they walk down the street, but far more people would prefer not seeing violent crime run rampant in the city.

While the law seems laughable, and thus far only warnings have been issued, there is a more insidious side to the criminalization of “sagging”: Because the fashion is now considered a crime, police have legal probable cause to search saggers for weapons or illegal substances, treating them as potentially dangerous drug dealers, gang members, or other violent offenders–all because of where they wear their pants. Not only does Dicks consider the fashion statement criminal, but he stretches his own rule past the point of logic: In a video published by the Free Press, the police chief is seen stopping and issuing warnings to men whose boxers show openly, but also to some whose shirts hang low enough to cover their underwear!

While civil rights groups are saying it’s obvious that this “law” is targeting men of color, Dicks, who is African-American, insists,”This is not a black issue. [...] Many people from different ethnic backgrounds and races are doing this fad.” He may be telling the truth about his motivation. The style originated in prison culture, where men were not allowed to wear belts, and it has progressed into mainstream culture as a part of hip-hop and sometimes gang uniforms. However, it was once a predominantly African-American style. Now, the style has spread to other races and cultures and has become just that–a style. And yet it can’t be denied that the majority of “saggers” are still minorities. Only time, it seems, will tell whether the law is applied disproportionately to black individuals, but the chances seem high.

Fortunately, the ACLU has threatened to take action against Dicks and the police department if the law is not repealed, but in the meantime the male citizens of Flint have to watch their butts, literally. If Dicks chooses to ignore the ACLU’s demand, not only are the Flint’s citizens at risk for losing their right to self-expression, but so are the rest of us.