Page 1 of 2

new twist @ the VHS

Posted: Nov 22 2003 1:49 pm
by pfredricks
As I was researching the kayaking things, I ran across a picture of the sign proclaiming "no nudity" at VHS
there seems to be a little note attached pointing at the ARS
It did get me thinking.
ARS is arizona revised statute-does that apply or not at the hot springs proper?
Believe me, i am not trying to stir the pot, I just really wondered if that is true or not.


-I actually did some quick research -
the ARS 13-1403 does not seem to make nudity itself illegal. I am almost certain that it is, but not according to the statute listed, i dont believe.

the ars itself ... ocType=ARS

Re: new twist @ the VHS

Posted: Nov 22 2003 2:06 pm
by Rodney
In response to pfredricks' reply:

If I read that statute right, it really has less to do with being nude and more to do with what you do while your nude? ... ocType=ARS

Posted: Nov 22 2003 2:08 pm
by Rodney
Pete...your not suppose to be changing your post while I'm typing! :lol:

Posted: Nov 22 2003 2:17 pm
by Rodney
ARS 13-1402 seems to be the one they probably should have used. ... ocType=ARS

As for it applying in National Forest, I would guess it applies in any area that is considered "Arizona".

Posted: Nov 22 2003 2:28 pm
by pfredricks
sorry about that.
seems reasonable to me Rodney

Posted: Nov 22 2003 3:17 pm
by Marc LaBelle
From a "Cop" point of view:

People/citizens always like to PUSH the proverbial envelope where law is concerned. They "Know" their rights. In this case, I would not try to find out if the statute applies. If it is posted there, it means that there is where it applies. Hey, it's a free country, if someone wants to see if the sign applies, let's find out.

Now the flip and lighter side of the statute. You need a victim. Guys, when was the last time you saw a woman naked and felt like you were victimized. And leave my ex out of this. Also, when I see a naked guy I turn my head. I believe the men's locker room rules apply here. You know, pick a urinal two away if open, etc.

I am not choosing sides in the "Naked debate," I am just trying to clarify the ARS thing. Also, with the love that most people have for cops (sarcasm), remember one thing: the ARS is vague and up to interpretation, and cops can write a report to make a mole hill look like a mountain. We may seem a little slow, but we have the creative writing imaginations of fairy tale authors.

Please watch out for the insentient first year law school wanna-be's who act on sentiment and not fact. The ARS is fool proof if common sense, and not personal feeling, is used. It is written to protect the whole, not to tick off the few.

Also, municipal officers (city,town) can enforce municipal, state, and federal laws. State Officers can only enforce state and federal laws. Federal Law Officers can only enforce Federal laws. something else to think about.


Posted: Nov 22 2003 4:01 pm
by Rodney
In response to MARC LABELLE's reply:

From an "ex-Cop" point of view:

If more citizens would trouble themselves to check the ARS they are being charged with, there would be a lot less creative writing! :wink:

As for the above ARS discussion, I find it a bit funny that they even bother to put an ARS on the sign to begin with...not sure if that's suppose to make it more illegal? :lol: Either way, it doesn't really matter...a good Officer will write down the ARS that applies to the situation and not give the sign a second thought.

Posted: Nov 22 2003 4:36 pm
by pfredricks
Thanks for the great input and some good points.

I guess that I really asked the question, because some folks made the point that nudity was outlawed specifically at the hot springs. The signs I have seen there, do not appear to be made by the state, and in fact appear to be something someone threw up on their own.

It doesnt seem to hurt to be well voiced in the law.
It has been very beneficial to me at times, especially in the way of traffic tickets.

Posted: Nov 22 2003 5:18 pm
by Rodney
In response to pfredricks' reply:

Yeah...most people tend to forget that cops are "almost" human! :lol: me, the last thing you want is to be stopped by an officer that skipped breakfast because they were too concerned with the fresh news of their spouse sleeping with their best friend! Not a pretty site! : rambo :
If nothing else, you will probably be sited for having 2 ears...and you would be surprised at the number of people that would just pay the ticket :roll:

Unfortunately, Law Enforcement is like every other business...there are officers that are good at what they do and there are officers that should only be allowed to run around naked at VHS. <--back on topic! :lol:

Posted: Nov 22 2003 5:48 pm
by Sredfield
In response to MARC LABELLE's reply:


Do you know if officers are deputized across jurisdictional boundaries? That is, might a federal officer be deputized by the local county sheriff so he or she can enforce county laws?

Just a thought.

Posted: Nov 23 2003 2:07 am
by Marc LaBelle
In response to Sredfield's reply:

I have not heard of such. Usually they would work together on something, so as not to step on toes. the mix works well sometimes, and at others it does not.

And Rodney is right. Be very careful when trying a cops buttons. What some officers find funny and sarcastic another may find hurtful and offensive. Hey wait, that sounds like a forum or two around here. Ah heck, I knew we were all humans.

Hey Rodney, you used to bleed blue????

Posted: Nov 23 2003 9:15 am
by Abe
Rodney wrote:ARS 13-1402 seems to be the one they probably should have used. ... ocType=ARS

As for it applying in National Forest, I would guess it applies in any area that is considered "Arizona".
I take what you are saying is the above meaning ARS only applies to the public lands of the State of Arizona? No jurisdiction on Federal Lands?
I may have found something to add from the ARS for review and consideration:

Closing note, my wife works for the Prescott Valley Department in the detective branch. We always get into her being the "Letter of the Law" :gun: and I am into the "Spirit of the Law". :A2:

Posted: Nov 23 2003 9:23 am
by woopitup
so, is anyone willing to challenge the ambiguity of the word "naked"? Where exactly is the line? I have seen those who perhaps where not completely naked who I found somewhat offensive :roll: And then I have seen those who without a stitch of clothes where not offensive at all! So, is it the nudity or what one finds offensive that the "law" wants to protect?

Posted: Nov 23 2003 11:26 am
by Marc LaBelle
In response to Abe's reply:

I too beleive in the spirit of the law, i.e., What it means, not what it says.

As for Whoopitup's comment, there was a previous message about the ARS and what you can and can not show. It has all the nice PC words. And she is right, "What is offensive?" Again, a crime needs a victim 99% of the time.


Posted: Nov 23 2003 12:14 pm
by sherileeaz
Am I the only one that has a problem with the fact the person spelled Forest --- FORREST!

No biggie, but I probably would have joked it off if I had seen that sign. Hard to take it seriously when they can't spell forest.

Good topic, good discussion although I have no opinion either way on this discussion, it's nice to read what others think about it.

Sherileeaz 8)

Posted: Nov 23 2003 12:34 pm
by Rodney
MARC LABELLE wrote:Hey Rodney, you used to bleed blue????
I was a Deputy Sheriff, back in Kentucky, for almost 10 years. Although the laws are basically the same, the actual activity is very mild compared to the big city. I actually took and passed the entrance exam for the PPD when I first moved here 2 1/2 years ago...then decided it might be best to go back to my graphic background. :D

In my opinion, the laws are written short & sweet for the sole purpose of introducing the offender to the judge. Once you enter the system, that one line ARS can soon become a small paperback book! Of course, the system is far from perfect and one would better serve themselves to avoid the system all together!

Posted: Nov 23 2003 12:59 pm
by Rodney
Abe wrote:I take what you are saying is the above meaning ARS only applies to the public lands of the State of Arizona? No jurisdiction on Federal Lands?
Actually, I feel the ARS applies to all land and water located within the boundaries of Arizona. I would also think that any agency operating within same, shall also be bound to the ARS. I'm not a judge or, that is an unofficial opinion. :D

Posted: Nov 23 2003 1:08 pm
by Abe
Thanks Rodney, I had to ask because I was a bit thrown. Reading into it to deep I guess.

Posted: Nov 23 2003 1:19 pm
by Daryl
Just curious; I'm sure public urination is in the ARS. Does that apply to the national forest land? I hope not!!!

Posted: Nov 23 2003 1:45 pm
by Rodney
Daryl wrote:Just curious; I'm sure public urination is in the ARS. Does that apply to the national forest land? I hope not!!!
The thing about any really only applies when you are "caught & charged". Till then, you are free to pee on the tree! :lol: Besides, wild animals mark their trails all the time! Now...if you get to the point that you can tell who has been on the trail before you, you've gone way too far! :o