I always got a kick out of it that when Harry Connick Jr. married fashion model Jill Goodacre, who had modeled for Victoria’s Secret, every announcement about the wedding referred to her as “former underwear model.”

My takeaway from your first comment was that Moore could still challenge the law. Now, you’ve since clarified your position, but don’t get annoyed when people read your comment, rather than your mind.

“The case specifically cites the Moore and Drew prosecutions as evidence”

When people tell you you’re wrong and then agree with the point you thought you were making, that’s a sign that perhaps you weren’t as clear as you could have been.

In other words, it might be more of a marketing “sex sells” thing.

You tell me I am wrong and then immediately concede the sole point I was making. That is just silly.

I say “nobody needs to be convicted before the law is challenged.”

You say “You’re wrong. Yes, it’s true that you don’t have to be *convicted* to challenge the law.”

Holy disconnect, Batman.

Anyhoo, I would like to apologize for being rude to Radley earlier. Frankly, I owe a great deal of my political identity and even worldview to this blog, and it was silly of me to try to call him out. I should have realized and appreciated that his writings are by necessity limited in length and so that although he has done his research, he may not have room to explain legal nuance.

And people wonder why sex worker rights activists oppose legalization schemes which include licensing; if a prostitute’s real name was a matter of public record in a license bureau, she could face stigma literally for the rest of her life.

But Tiawanda Moore could still challenge the law at this point by manner of a Section 1983 suit, right? It seems like a court entertaining such a suit would necessarily be addressing the constitutionality of the statute.

Yes, it’s true that you don’t have to be *convicted* to challenge the law. But you do either need to be (a) actively prosecuted (whether it’s a non-adjudicated prosecution or a conviction under appeal) or (b) be in imminent, real danger of being prosecuted under the law. Once Ms. Moore was acquitted, she no longer met either prong, and therefore she no longer has standing under the law to challenge the law.

I’ve seen several cases where a prosecutor has dropped a case against a defendant in order to avoid such defendant’s attempt to challenge the law.

This isn’t even something I’d need to talk to the ACLU lawyers about. This is something that any lawyer learned in a 1L Civil Procedure course.

This is why people start to talk about shallow holes and bags of lime.

I point out that you were wrong when you wrote that the law can’t be challenged until somebody is convicted under it.

You respond in part by acknowledging that the law is being challenged, despite that nobody has been convicted under it, and then you’re rude.

How difficult is it to say, “You’re right. I was sloppy when I wrote that. I have actually talked to the folks at the ACLU challenging the law, and they are trying to overcome their standing issue by including people who had been charged (but not convicted) under the law. I should have known better than to say the law cannot be challenged until somebody has been convicted.”

The “sanity check” I offered is not deep legal analysis or anything. It’s “does this pass the smell test?” You don’t need to work for the ACLU to recognize that a legal idea stinks. You apparently did talk to some folks from the ACLU and ended up wrong anyways. Not their fault, I’m sure.

Hey does anyone know where I can find an article about that ruling where the cops can bust in your house if they hear the toilet flushing or something?

I don’t know about any reputable news sources, but here’s an article about it from The New York Times.

And this quote from the Chicago Tribune article makes me believe that it just might have been jury nullification:

“The two cops came across as intimidating and insensitive,” said one juror, Ray Adams, 57, a pharmacist from the western suburbs. “Everybody thought it was just a waste of time and that (Moore) never should have been charged.”