The Porterdale City Council approved a new law covering indecent exposure despite concerns over wording in the ordinance and one councilman's opinion that a prohibition on saggy pants should have been included.

The vote was 5 to 2 in favor during the ordinance's third and final reading at the council's Tuesday meeting. The new law defines expose of one's buttocks, genital areas or undergarments in public as "lewd and indecent." The definition extends to simulated sexual acts, such as impropriate touching, and urinating in public.

Individuals cited under the law will be charged with a misdemeanor crime by city police. A conviction brings a fined $25 for a first offense and $200 for each additional conviction along with the possible of community service.

Council member Mike Harper voted for adopting the ordinance but said he was frustrated that the law did not specifically prohibit saggy pants in the city.

"When you get a young man in the public, in our parks, and got his pants down below his behind there ought to be something," he said. "We should as a governing body here protect our kids and well being of our citizens from thug type activity like this. I think we need to stop it."

The ordinance had a section on saggy pants, noting it was considered indecent if pants sagged three inches below the belt line. However, that section was taken out that the ordinance out of concern that the law could bring a court challenge based upon possible infringement of a person's right of free speech.

Harper recalled a time when a man walked across the park with saggy pants during a children's baseball practice and that caused a concern. No one approached the man to pull up his pants out of fear that the situation could turn into an altercation.

Porterdale Mayor Arline Chapman said anyone in that situation should call 911 if they feel threatened, but the council agreed in earlier meetings not to legislate saggy pants based on the city attorney and solicitor's advice.

"I don't know what else we can do about that," she said. "We've been told that we would be challenged in court if we pass this, and I feel very strongly that we need to let somebody else bite the bullet when it comes to court challenges."

Council member Lowell Chambers also noted the inclusion of "undergarments" in ordinance, but no defining sections may make the law unclear. He said undergarments is mentioned in the ordinance's whereas only.

"Whereas the word ‘undergarments' in the whereas and when we get to the therefore there is no ordinance on undergarments," he said. "So, the therefore is what becomes part of the ordinance and what we're really voting on. The whereas is just sort of our general opinion. We can say wearing your underwear outside is childish but it's not really enforceable."

Chambers and Council member Anita Rainey voted against the ordinance. Rainey said the ordinance was not clear by not specifically stating women's breasts as indecent. She said the omission could be used a loop hole in the law.

Chambers said he was in favor of the ordinance but has concerns of how far the city could go with the law against the public. He recalled visiting a state park in Virginia and seeing a sign stating those caught urinating or defecating outside could be prosecuted as a sexual offender.

"I think that was overkill, and I didn't have any particular intent to urinate in the park, but nonetheless I thought that was going somewhere where we didn't want to go," Chambers said.

Porterdale City Manager Bob Thomson explained that state law covers felony charges although a city police officer would be obligated to charge a person with a felony if they deemed a felony crime had occurred.

Chambers said he only wanted a common sense approach to enforcing the law and believed the wording could be improved.

"I don't want anybody fishing on the river who would feel the need and necessity and act upon that, and we would then line them up on a sexual offender list," he said. "I think that is inappropriate in this application."