Submitted by tomrue on
To: The Times Herald-Record, Middletown, New York (ral-rikabi@th-record.com, mmcguire@th-record.com, mlevine@th-record.com, rgaydos@th-record.com)
From: Tom Rue
Date: November 24, 2006
Re: Reader feedback on "Angry man strips in the middle of the road"
The bit entitled "Angry man strips in middle of the road" on 11/24 by Ramsey Al-Rikabi described the allegations only from the police perspective. I do not know any of the parties involved, but the brazen headline caught my attention. For starters, I wondered why there was no indication in the article that an attempt was made to contact Timothy Halpin's attorney, or Halpin himself, requesting an explanation of his behavior. Even a throw-away "could not be reached for comment" would have appeared more journalistically balanced.
It would not seem a great stretch to imagine, given certain conditions, that part of Halpin's defense might be to argue that his voluntary and intentional removal of his clothing in front of the police was a form of protected "speech" directed at the government officials who were interrogating him. I am not accusing the police here of any misconduct at all, but a citizen does have the right to petition government for redress, if you'll excuse the pun, even using unconventional attention-getting behavior.
New York's "public lewdness" statute (PL 245.00), in my opinion, is unduly broad. Although it is only a class "B" misdemeanor, its application can give a wrongful impression to an uninformed lay person or employer that an individual so convicted was guilty of some sort of sexual offense, which it often is not. I saw this statute used during my experience as a probation officer years ago, as well as during work since then as a licensed mental health counselor, to prosecute behaviors ranging from genuine sexual exhibitionism, to drunken urination in a dark alley, to removing one's clothes in protest of such things as war or of sexism. Remember the "Topfree Seven" who were acquitted in 1992, after six years, after having been charged for exposing their female breasts in a Rochester park? The word "lewdness" implies an element of prurience or obscenity which does not appear to exist in Halpin's alleged acts, nor in many other instances where simple public exposure is the charge -“ and even less so when nudity is a tool of protest toward government or the law.
My personal belief is that the Legislature ought to refine the definition of this vague statute to prevent its misapplication and misinterpretation.
In a separate matter, I failed to see the point in including the name and age of Halpin's "girlfriend" in the story, since there was no indication that she played any role in his alleged resistance of arrest other than to have previously engaged in some sort of argument with the defendant. Identifying her in connection with this details as reported would most likely be a source of public embarrassment and served no purpose. Perhaps there was more to the story that justified including her name in the account which simply was not reported.
Tom Rue