Is this scneario illegal?

[Bricker]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Is “procure” under that section defined as a mere lewd request or suggestion?

I can’t find any case law that has upheld a mere suggestion, which is why I specified a zealous prosecutor… because I can’t find any that has rejected it, either. In Wayside Restaurant v. Virginia Beach, 215 Va. 231 (1974) the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a conviction of “procures” against restaurant owners that ran a topless bar, but made the point that a First Amendment balancing test was weaker when applied to commercial speech than it might be for non-commercial speech, and stressed that their decsion rested on the former grounds:

Since the appellants have no standing to assert the rights of those engaged in non-commercial activity, we limit our consideration of the ordinance to its effect upon the commercial activity in which the appellants are engaged, namely, the licensed sale of beer and wine.
.
.
.
In this posture we cannot say that the trial court erred in rejecting appellants’ First Amendment attack upon the facial constitutionality of the ordinance. As suggested by LaRue, we reserve decision to another day, upon a full and adequate record, on any concrete problems of constitutional dimension under the First Amendment which might arise from future application of the ordinance.

Even in this case, though, there was no direct challenge on the question of how strong the impetus must be in order to qualify as ‘procure.’ Apparently, the meaning of the word “procure,” in the context of Code § 18.2-387, would be a question of first impression in the Commonwealth.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

Here in Minnesota, you would be more likely to be arrested for solicitation. Specifically, a violation of Mn statutes 609.322, Solicitation, inducement, or promotion of prostitution; sex trafficking.

[Giles]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Here in Minnesota, you would be more likely to be arrested for solicitation. Specifically, a violation of Mn statutes 609.322, Solicitation, inducement, or promotion of prostitution; sex trafficking.

But is baring the breasts prostitution or sex trafficking?

[MannyL]

Thank you all for the comments. My friend didn’t believe that he was incorrect so we settled it by calling the local police non emergency line where he asked the same question to an officer. I must say the look on his face was priceless as he found out that I was correct.

[Noel_Prosequi]

If the coppers saw it? Disorderly conduct, for which you’d be given an on-the-spot fine. If not, they wouldn’t bother to investigate it. Of course not everywhere has generic disorderly conduct charges available for political and/or constitutional reasons (there is a potential problem with vagueness).

[Becky2844]

Number one: is it provable?
From what you’ve said the answer is No.
Your “friend” doesn’t like you, and he’s messing with your mind.
Ditch the friend and continue the pursuit of (legal age) tits.

[isaiahrobinson]

With the law there’s never any straightforward answer to the question “is this illegal?” regarding a generic situation. But the basic answer is yes, you could potentially be arrested, for a number of different things including “assault”, which does not - contrary to what some people have said in the thread already - require any physical contact but rather is defined as causing someone to fear physical harm.

But again, as is always the case with legal questions, it completely depends on the situation. If you calmly and politely asked the question of a confident adult woman on a busy street during the day, maintaining a distance from her and walking away as soon as she says no, it’s unlikely a court would find you’ve done anything unlawful. But if it turns out the woman has been a rape victim and was frightened by your question, or is shy and prone to being frightened, or if you stand too close to her, stay too long or present yourself too aggressively, or ask her in a deserted area or after dark, it could well be deemed a tort or a crime.

[isaiahrobinson]

If you’re with a group of male friends when you approach her and she’s alone that would also make it more likely to be considered assault.

[isaiahrobinson]

@MannyL

Thank you all for the comments. My friend didn’t believe that he was incorrect so we settled it by calling the local police non emergency line where he asked the same question to an officer. I must say the look on his face was priceless as he found out that I was correct.

You’re not. There is indeed the potential for the person to be arrested depending on the details of the scenario.

[Cartooniverse]

From This link:

In 1992 New York’s highest state court ruled that women could be topfree in public. Since 1992 women in the highly populous State of New York have enjoyed the right to bare their chests whenever men could do so. As one New York Justice wrote in his concurring opinion, “One of the most important purposes to be served by the equal protection clause is to ensure that ‘public sensibilities’ grounded in prejudice and unexamined sterotypes do not become enshrined as part of the official policy of government.”
In a curious loop of history, the female rights movement in the United States began in Rochester, New York, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as a principle pioneer. In her time Elizabeth Cady Stanton was ridiculed for wearing bloomers instead of a floor-length skirt. In 1986 seven Rochester women held topfree picnics, resulting in New York’s highest court ruling female topfreedom legal in 1992 (see above). Now Cathy Stanton, the 63-year old great-great-granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is a plaintiff in the Florida suit.

So in NYC if you walked up to a woman and asked her to bare her breasts not only are you not violating a law, you are encouraging her to obey a statute.

Go for it.

[lawbuff]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Just from the bare (ahem) facts laid out by the OP, this would not be a crime in Ohio. The more persistent and unwanted such statements are, of course, the more likely a cop is to arrest you for disturbing the peace.

Don’t quote me on this yet, but I believe the case law on this section of the Disorderly conduct law, the offensive language MUST be tantamount to “fighting words” to trigger the section;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
IOW, I agree. As you cite, repeated conduct can be another matter, maybe even Menacing.

[md2000]

@lawbuff

Don’t quote me on this yet, but I believe the case law on this section of the Disorderly conduct law, the offensive language MUST be tantamount to “fighting words” to trigger the section;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
IOW, I agree. As you cite, repeated conduct can be another matter, maybe even Menacing.

Depends on the exact words and tone, but the “grossly abusive” might kick in if the prosecutor and judge were so inclined.
Reminds me of the story abuot the one fellow asking the othr his secret to success with women.

“Look,” the first guy says. “You have to find the sort that want to go along with you. Fr example, I come up to a good looking girls and ask ‘Tickle your ass with a feather?’. If she smiles or giggles, I know she’s game and we take it from there. If she get indignant and says, ‘I beg your pardon?!’ then I look up at the sky and say ‘particularly nasty weather?’.”

The slower second guy says “Wow, that sounds like a good system. I’m gonna try it!”

He goes up to a pretty girl and says “Show me your tits!”
She says indignantly “What???!!!”
He looks up and says “Hmmm, looks like rain!”

[Huerta88]

OP specifies he is in N.J.

And so the answer is – perhaps (though not for “sexual harassment” as many have noted). The (somewhat vague) pertinent statute reads thusly:

2C:14-4. Lewdness
2C:14-4. Lewdness.

a. A person commits a disorderly persons offense if he does any flagrantly lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other nonconsenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed.