Friedman v. District Court, 611 P.2d 77
April 16, 1984 (Sup. Ct.)
Contempt order for lawyer not wearing coat and tie was upheld.
"Attorneys occupy a different position in relation to the courts than do ordinary citizens. Attorneys are officers of the court. The privilege of practicing law is subject to certain conditions, among which is that an attorney must observe reasonable rules of courtroom behavior and decorum. Courts have long controlled the manner in which attorneys may appear before them." [Go to Quote]
Jensen v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 201 Cal. Rptr. 275, 154 Cal. App. 3d 533
April 16, 1984 (Ct. of App., Dist. 4)
Lawyer has right to wear turban in court without having to justify it, provided that it does not disrupt court.
In re Alcala, 222 Cal. App. 3d 345, 271 Cal. Rptr. 674
July 23, 1990 (Ct. of App., Dist. 1)
While right to wear clothing of one's choice is protected, it is not protected for prisoners.
Buhl v. Hannigan, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1612, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 740
June 30, 1993 (Ct. of App., Dist. 4)
State may require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Statute reasonably relates to a legitimate governmental purpose.
District of Columbia
Wheelock v. United States, 552 A.2d 503
December 21, 1988 (Ct. of App.)
Particulars about the D.C. "unlawful entry" statute. For government buildings, not only must a person have been ordered to leave, but there must be "some additional specific factor establishing the party's lack of a legal right to remain." Mentions the "tourist standard."
Berg v. United States, 631 A.2d 394
September 16, 1993 (Ct. of App.)
More on the "tourist standard." Conviction of demonstrators in Capitol upheld because of their extreme actions and numbers.
Hasty v. United States, 958 F.2d 1242
December 18, 1995 (Ct. of App.)
More on the "tourist standard." Conviction of demonstrator in Capitol reversed since "tourist standard" limitation on statute not considered by court.
Sandstrom v. State of Florida, 309 So.2d 17
February 28, 1975 (Sup. Ct.)
Contempt against attorney for not wearing coat and tie upheld. District Court said he should have complied while he challenged it.
"We reject the suggestion and hold that the order in question does not involve the violation of any of appellant's constitutional rights. Certainly by becoming a member of the bar, a lawyer does not terminate his membership in the human race, nor does he surrender constitutional rights possessed by private citizens. However '[membership] in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.' As we indicate earlier, compliance with regulations concerning courtroom attire is one of those conditions." [Go to Quote]
Sandstrom v. State of Florida, 336 So.2d 572
June 30, 1976 (Sup. Ct.)
Contempt against attorney for not wearing coat and tie upheld. Supreme Court claimed no jurisdiction.
Kersevich et al. v. Jaffrey District Court, 114 N.H. 790, 330 A.2d 446
December 31, 1974 (Sup. Ct.)
Contempt against two defendants for not wearing coat and tie overturned. Rules of dress must be directly related to the needs of judicial administration.
People v. Smallwood, 277 N.Y.S.2d 429, 52 Misc. 2d 1027
February 14, 1967 (Ct. of Spec. Sess., Irondequoit, Monroe Cty.)
Motorcycle helmet law unconstitutional because of vagueness.
Peck v. Stone, 32 App.Div.2d 506, 304 NYS 2d 881
Order of Judge prohibiting female attorney from wearing miniskirt in courtroom was arbitrary.
People v. Simmons, 357 N.Y.S.2d 362, 79 Misc. 2d 249
June 11, 1974 (Crim. Ct. of City of N.Y.)
Cross-dressing case that says the state has power to prohibit cross-dressing when it is associated with criminal conduct.
State v. Craig, 19 Ohio App.2d 29, 249 N.E.2d 75
June 25, 1969 (Ct. of App., Seneca Cty.)
Motorcycle helmet law was not unconstitutional. It was within the police power of the state since it protected the general public from the dangers of an out-of-control motorcycle if the driver was hit on the head by a rock.
". . . a motorcyclist who loses control of his vehicle because he is struck on his bare head by an object, constitutes a hazard to other users of the highway who may be struck by a motorcycle which has gone out of control." (Emphasis added.) [Go to Quote]
State v. Betts, 21 Ohio Misc. 175, 252 N.E.2d 866
August 22, 1969 (Mun. Ct. of Franklin)
Motorcycle helmet law was unconstitutional as outside of the police power of the state.
"A public need must exist for the enactment of a police measure. Without some reasonable public necessity for the restriction or regulation of an individual, the restriction or regulation is unwarranted and invalid and is not a proper exercise of the police power." [Go to Quote]
"We must conclude that § 4511.53 Revised Code is designed only for the protection of the individual motorcyclist. Whether or not a motorcyclist wears a helmet and goggles is a matter of concern solely to the individual involved. Included in man's 'liberty' is the freedom to be as foolish, foolhardy or reckless as he may wish, so long as others are not endangered thereby. The State of Ohio has no legitimate concern with whether or not an individual cracks his skull while motorcycling; that is his personal risk." [Go to Quote]
Columbus v. Zanders, 25 Ohio Misc. 144, 266 N.E.2d 602
October 13, 1970 (Franklin Cty. Mun. Ct.)
Cross-dressing transsexual arrest for appearing "in a dress not belonging to his sex". Court ruled that law was constitutional, but that Zanders did not have the intent necessary.
Laucher v. Simpson, 28 Ohio App.2d 195, 276 N.E.2d 261
November 15, 1971 (Ct. of App., Knox Cty.)
Good grooming ruled a component of good education, so rule was reasonable.
Schneider v. Ohio Youth Commission, 31 Ohio App.2d 225, 287 N.E.2d 633
January 25, 1972 (Ct. of App., Franklin Cty.)
State may regulate the hair length of a counselor for troubled juveniles.
"[W]e state that in our view one generally may, within the exercise of his individual rights and while not violating the rights of others, effect such mode of dress or personal grooming, including style of hair, as he so desires. [Go to Quote]
Jacobs v. Benedict, 39 Ohio App.2d 141, 316 N.E.2d 808
November 19, 1973 (Ct. of App., Hamilton Cty.)
Hair regulation ruled not necessary for governance of schools.
City of Cincinnati v. Adams, 42 Ohio Misc. 48, 330 N.E.2d 463
November 8, 1974 (Hamilton Cty. Mun. Ct.)
Cross-dressing ordinance ("not customarily worn") unconstitutional for vagueness. Not unconstitutional for violation of First Amendment.
City of Columbus v. Rogers, 41 Ohio St.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 563
March 4, 1975 (Sup. Ct.)
Cross-dressing ordinance ("not customarily worn") unconstitutional for vagueness.
McClung v. Board of Education, 46 Ohio St.2d 149, 346 N.E.2d 691
May 5, 1976 (Sup. Ct.)
State may not prohibit picture of long-haired student from appearing in yearbook when he was allowed to have long hair throughout year, despite rule. Ohio Supreme Court did not rule on constitutionality of long-hair regulation since this case did not reach the application of the regulation in the school itself.
Mann v. Hubbard Exempted School, unpublished
June 21, 1976 (Ct. of App., Trumbull Cty.)
Court upheld school hair regulation. Courts will not interfere with school district's authority.
Royer v. Board of Education, 51 Ohio App.2d 17, 365 N.E.2d 889
March 7, 1977 (Ct. of App., Preble Cty.)
The enforcement of a school board's dress code as it relates to hair length does not infringe upon constitutional rights.
Appeal of Cox et al., 60 Ohio App.2d 368, 397 N.E.2d 779
February 21, 1979 (Ct. of App., Montgomery Cty.)
State Trooper rule about "well groomed" was not specific enough to enforce a hair regulation.