Trials and Tribune-lations

By Lauri Apple in News on Aug 31, 2008 7:30PM

A Rolling Meadows jury recently determined whether kindergarten teacher and "cascade of golden blond curls" possessor Deborah Maybach should be found guilty of disorderly conduct for her June 1 protest of semi-nude art photography at the Promenade of Art festival in Arlington Heights. At issue was Maybach's manner of expressing her discontent with photos by Georgia photographer Jana Epstein, which Maybach worried were too provocative for children's eyes. In addition to raising First Amendment concerns, the case also focused on whether Maybach was "calm and reasonable" in her protest, as her attorney says, or "running back and forth like a goalie" in attempting to shield the photos from view, as asserted by the state. The jury, apparently sympathetic to Maybach's "what about the children?" stance, acquitted.

However, the Trib's reporting doesn't seem to tell the complete story. According to the daily, Maybach was arrested after she refused to hand over her identification. Does that mean that she refused to provide her name altogether? In the courtroom, these pesky little details matter: In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations. Such statutes are called "stop and identify" laws -- and Illinois has one. Maybach apparently admitted that she did not hand over her identification because she was "intimidated" by the officer. Was the jury asked to take up this issue? Based on the article, it's not altogether clear. (Damn those Tribune staff cuts!)