Wednesday, February 04, 2004

Hey Neighbor

It seems that almost everyone has one neighbor that drives them crazy, for one reason or another.  It may be deferred maintenance on the neighbor’s home is driving down values in the overall neighborhood, or, the neighbor keeps a junked car or three in their front yard, or, quite possibly, the neighbor is just a general nuisance and, like the kid picked last for the team sport on the playground, nobody really wants them around.  It appears we have a case here in West Michigan that fits the profile of the kid picked last.

One Marlin A. Sleeman, a resident of Lake Bella Vista, a subdivision a tad north of my home with a bit of snob appeal, was convicted for “indecent or obscene conduct in a public place.”  Sounds serious.  The conviction results from Ms. Sleeman’s sunbathing habits, which, Ms. Sleeman’s neighbors found offensive.  Based on the accompanying photo in the dead tree rendition of this article, there may be an aesthetic validity to the neighbors’ complaint, but, if you read article, one finds the neighbors’ use of the law is simply a method the neighbors attempted to use to control Ms. Sleeman’s behavior.  The basic testimony, per the article.

“They” (the neighbors who testified I assume - ed. - itals by ed.), “said she sat provocatively in a lawn chair near the street.  They also said she arranged her shorts and hiked up her shirt to expose as much skin as possible, but never showed her private parts.”

Ooh, sounds horrendous.  Believe it or not, Ms. Sleeman was convicted.  Not necessarily surprising, when you consider the strong conservative base of West Michigan, and the fact that you are never further than a mile or two from a church in a fifty mile radius.

Even more amazing than Ms. Sleeman’s conviction though is the fact that Judge Dennis Kolenda threw out the verdict on appeal.  The judge’s ruling as reported by the Grand Rapids Press.

He said Sleeman did not engage in indecent behavior, and pointed out other neighbors wore similar apparel. The judge also disputed that the manner in which she sunbathed moved beyond that which is readily observable on television.

Kolenda said accusations that Sleeman gave people “the finger” also were insufficient to prove she acted criminally. He said “the finger” is expression, and expression is protected under free speech.

In the end, the judge said, neighbors were annoyed by Sleeman’s “lifestyle and appearance”—clearly not a crime.

“Nonconformists must be tolerated, not merely because genuine freedom encompasses the right to be odd, which it does, but because such tolerance dignifies the right of dissent,” he wrote in his opinion. “Dissent is essential to a free society.”

Congratulations Judge Kolenda.  But Ms. Sleeman isn’t quite shuck of this little dust up yet.  It appears that the Kent County Prosecutor’s office is on the side of conformity and voter appreciation, as evidenced by the following.

Now, the Kent County prosecutor’s office is trying to move the case to the Court of Appeals. Because this is a second appeal, the county must ask the court’s permission to hear the case, said Lynn Hopkins, an assistant prosecutor who often argues appeals.

Reading the entire article will provide you with other details of Ms. Sleeman’s eccentricities and interactions with her neighbors over the years.  While Ms. Sleeman is, to say the least, somewhat of a pain in the ass, she isn’t breaking any laws.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/04 at 07:02 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages