Charlie Todd wrote in to say that the last of the people arrested in January's No Pants 2006 subway ride had her case dismissed yesterday. Apparently "Agent Omega" overslept the court date last month, so it took a little longer for her to get cleared. Charlie scanned in the dismissal order-- it contains some amusing judicial prose:
The second question then becomes, what was Respondent wearing? Respondent verbally and physically described the bottom she was wearing that day: her own underwear, boy shorts over those, and boxer shorts over the boy shorts. Based on her sincere and forthright demeanor, clear and unequivocal testimony and her ability to recall and describe in detail the circumstances surrounding the incident, I fully credit Respondent's testimony. While I find that her 'shorts' may indeed have been 'short', the allegation that she was wearing "just her underwear" is an overstament unsupported by the facts and it is unclear (and unlikely) that such an item of clothing by itself would really cause 'public alarm' on a New York City subway train.