Court Document from No Pants case!

This is the actual decision as written by the transit court in dismissing Agent Omega (real name omitted from the document for her privacy) from the charges brought against her for riding the subway pantless this past January. The other 7 agents ticketed had their cases dropped last month. This one took longer because Agent Omega overslept and missed her first court date. Officer Panton (yes, his real name) appeared and testified that it was a “fun day”. Read the whole document– it’s hilarious.

No Pants Decision


  1. …oops, I forgot what I was going to say. Yes, during Summer here in NYC, it’s very hard to tell the street wears from lingerie that women wears.

  2. They do not seem to care about proper punctuation, eh? Is it so hard to use spell check?
    Regardless, I love how it relates the questions in chronological order.

  3. Out of context it sounds even more comical:
    “it is unclear (and unlikely) that such an item of clothing[the underwears] by itself would really cause ‘public alarm’ on a New Yorkc City subway train.”

    Awesome IE!

  4. “The officer stated several times that the problem he was trying to resolve was the delay in service”

    Funny, since there was no delay in service whatsoever until Officer Panton ordered train to remain in the station (and subsequently be put out of service).

  5. To be fair, I don’t think Panton was the cop that stopped the train. I think it was Mulcahy. Michelle, do you know?

  6. Correct, PO Panton (who issued the Transit summons) was responding to the call that the train was out of service. I believe it was the NYPD officer (the A/O for the other six IE agents) who stopped the train.

  7. that is hilarious. i think. the numerous mentions of ‘boy shorts’ make it especially hilarious.

  8. It sounds like she had more clothing on than most people who ride the subway…funny that she would be stopped.

  9. ..I mean what about those women who don’t shave their pits – ever – and expose them so that we can see them and smell them. I find that more alarming than someone wearing three pairs of underwear. Which is a welcome change because frankly, there are too many people walking around without underwear on. I mean..come on! I have seen too much crack on the subway..I’m not talking about the kind you smoke.

  10. No, this isn’t a “know your rights” comment – I am an attorney, though. The best part about this was just watching the facts emerge… reading one account to the next, putting the story together. It was awesome!! Hearing it unfold from the multiple points of view was hysterical. What a fantastic idea, great group of agents, and a great way to wear that royal blue polo shirt you thought looked too “corporate” that you got last year for christmas!!

  11. I love the last part. “…though her manner of dress was by no means conservative…”


  12. Summer is no-pants time for my across the way neighbor – he is much better but sometimes he sits in his underwear on the poarch in his brown barcalounger and talks to himself. No pants is to close to home for me to find amusing.

  13. I’m sure that if the judge hadn’t ruled favorably, the media would go absolutely crazy and a whole bunch of NYers riding the subway would ride pantless in a REAL protest.

    What would have been far more useful would have been to have left everyone pantless. Then the NYPD would have had 160 people doing absolutely nothing to deal with. There would have been no "mad rush" for pants and there would have been no way to handle that load "at the office". The media would have had a field day. 8 innocent people get a mere blurb in the evening news, 160 innocent people would cause a national-level incident :)

  14. Interesting. It feels like the matrix or something reading all of this lol. Who is an agent! Who isn’t! Trust no one!

  15. You guys rock! I can’t wait to read about the next mission! Keep it up, you’ve got support in Vegas!

  16. "While I find that her shorts may have indeed been, short" HAHA Oh No! Short shorts.