The last thing I want is an a court of appeals to "think out of the box." Thank you for your voice of sanity. It's entirely possible, strange as it may seem, that this decision is correct. If, as I suspect, it is correct there's an obvious message to the State Legislature. Meantime, Wondevixen's roll of coins might be useful.
Can you give an example of language within the law that would make this ruling correct? I cannot fathom that the law would state that one has the right to look under another's clothing in a public place without that person's permission. So what could the law possibly say that would make this a correct ruling?