# Am I Legally Obligated To Get Dressed Before Answering My Door? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 3, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286 "2004-05-03T15:19:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/1 "2004-05-03T15:19:48Z")
Suppose I’m at home on a rather hot, humid day and I’m keeping myself cool in the most environmentally-friendly way possible, by being completely naked. Now suppose that someone knocks on my door. Further, let’s assume that this person has shown up without providing me with any advanced notification. Legally, am I required to put some pants on before opening my door? The way I see it (I’m not an attorney), by showing up unannounced, this person is invading _my_ privacy, and therefore I should not be required to conform to his or her personal tastes while I’m within the confines of my own home. Is this view accurate? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![SandyHook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@SandyHook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SandyHook)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/2 "2004-05-03T15:38:38Z")
I have no cite but a few years back a man was arrested that very thing. The person knocking on the door was a girl scout selling cookies and the guy had a boner, IIRC. Wish I did have something more on this. As I think about it I would like to know how the whole thing came out. I suspect law in this area may not have received as much attention as warrented. But probably most people are brighter than that. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/3 "2004-05-03T15:45:48Z")
Interesting discussion [here](http://www25.brinkster.com/nudist/discussion/itemview.asp?item=495) Apparently at least some people wish to outlaw such a thing… (and [here](http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/w011602a.html) … ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/4 "2004-05-03T16:22:40Z")
I’m guessing that laws against indecent exposure vary from place to place, but that they certainly could forbid you from exposing yourself, even while on your own property, to someone who did not wish to see what you have to offer. Sexual harassment could also enter into it. Unless you had some pretty stern “No Trespassing” signs posted, I doubt that you could argue that someone was “invading your privacy” just by knocking on your door. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/5 "2004-05-03T16:31:51Z")
I wonder if this is why the Dutch Door was invented. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/6 "2004-05-03T16:55:21Z")
> [@Surreal](#): > > The way I see it (I’m not an attorney), by showing up unannounced, this person is invading _my_ privacy, and therefore I should not be required to conform to his or her personal tastes while I’m within the confines of my own home. Is this view accurate? The way I see it, you don’t have to answer the door. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/7 "2004-05-03T20:34:19Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > I’m guessing that laws against indecent exposure vary from place to place, but that they certainly could forbid you from exposing yourself, even while on your own property, to someone who did not wish to see what you have to offer. Sexual harassment could also enter into it. Unless you had some pretty stern “No Trespassing” signs posted, I doubt that you could argue that someone was “invading your privacy” just by knocking on your door. I was going to say, how about if you had a sign saying “I answer the door naked. If you don’t want to see, don’t knock and/or avert your eyes.” I don’t know about legally, but morally, that would put the onus on the knocker. OTOH, some people are required to come round - police, etc - and it mightn’t be fair on them… ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/8 "2004-05-03T20:57:41Z")
> [@Shade](#): > > … that would put the onus on the knocker… Kinky. ---
**Author:** ![alimarx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@alimarx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alimarx)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/9 "2004-05-03T21:05:08Z")
Why didn’t I think of this before? Great way to get rid of them damn JWs once and for all… ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/10 "2004-05-03T21:51:45Z")
I did something like that to a couple of Mormons once. They knocked and wanted to share the good news. I told them they were welcome but that my home was a clothing-free zone. They declined to strip and I haven’t been bothered since. Too bad, some of them missionaries are hotties. ---
**Author:** ![TJdude825](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@TJdude825](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJdude825)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/11 "2004-05-06T06:16:15Z")
Depending on the orientation of your door, you’re also exposing yourself to people who didn’t even come near the door (e.g. driving by or walking along the side of the street). ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/12 "2004-05-06T06:51:23Z")
> [@TJdude825](#): > > Depending on the orientation of your door… Straight, so far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/13 "2004-05-06T09:42:50Z")
> [@AndrewT](#): > > Straight, so far as I can tell. It doesn’t swing both ways? ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/14 "2004-05-06T09:52:57Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > It doesn’t swing both ways? I think you’re thinking of the people who enter my _back_ door… ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-legally-obligated-to-get-dressed-before-answering-my-door/243286/15 "2004-05-06T15:28:48Z")
> [@SandyHook](#): > > I have no cite but a few years back a man was arrested that very thing. > > The person knocking on the door was a girl scout selling cookies and the guy had a boner, IIRC. > > Wish I did have something more on this. As I think about it I would like to know how the whole thing came out. > > I suspect law in this area may not have received as much attention as warrented. But probably most people are brighter than that. I’m guessing you are referring to Egal v. State, 469 So.2d 196 Fla.App. 2 Dist.,1985, which is a fascinating case. The court described the factual situation as follows: > [@](#): > > A seven-year-old girl soliciting orders for Girl Scout cookies knocked on the door of defendant’s home. Defendant opened the door and stood naked facing the girl. When the girl asked if defendant wanted to buy cookies, defendant answered affirmatively, took an order form from her and went inside while she waited. He reappeared at the door, still naked, and handed her the completed order form and a ten dollar bill, although no money was then owed for the order. The order form was filled out with a fictitious name, address and telephone number. Defendant’s private parts were exposed to, and seen by, the girl. The court went on to discuss prior case law to help determine if the exposure was “lewd and lascivious” as required by statute: > [@](#): > > simply sleeping naked on a dock, apparently without deliberate exposure to others, was not lewd and lascivious, Goodmakers v. State, supra, nor was urinating in a public parking lot, apparently without deliberate exposure to others, Payne v. State, supra, or parading before the state capitol without clothing but with cardboard signs on front and back which avoided substantial exposure of sexual organs, The court went on to find that: > [@](#): > > In this case, although the evidence did not show that defendant spoke any words or made any motions evidencing an illicit intent, nevertheless the totality of the circumstances was such that the jury could properly have concluded that defendant’s conduct violated the statute. One consideration is that defendant appeared at the door twice, and it is clear that defendant knowingly exposed himself in front of the young girl when he returned to the door where the girl was waiting. This factor distinguishes defendant’s behavior from conduct in some other cases which was found not to be lewd and lascivious. For example, there was apparently no showing in Goodmakers that the man sleeping naked on the dock knew that anyone else was present and observing him, and there apparently was no showing in Payne that the defendant knowingly exposed himself to others. This factor of intentional exposure to others also distinguishes this case from the situation of a person who happens to be seen through a window while walking nude in his house. The court went on to discuss the social mores surrounding nudity, but eventually affirmed the defendant’s conviction. On the female side, I found Moore v. City of Berkeley to be another fascinating case. It had the following fact situation: > [@](#): > > On that date, plaintiffs Debbie Moore and Nina Shilling walked through the streets of the City topless, i.e., “bare-breasted.” On their way home, Moore and Shilling passed by a schoolyard just as the children were being let out. A local pastor named Theresa Sipsy, who had spotted the two women walking topless on earlier occasions, saw the women walk by the school. Ms. Sipsy was particularly offended by the women’s partial nudity in front of children and consulted with the school principal, who called the police. Officer Stanley Baker, along with Officer Lau, responded to the call. > Officers Baker and Lau and Ms. Sipsy approached the home owned by Moore and Shilling. By this time, Moore and Shilling had already been home for about thirty minutes, and they were in the process of fixing and eating their lunch. When Moore and Shilling answered the door, they were still topless. At some point, Officer Baker asked if he, Officer Lau, and Ms. Sipsy could come inside to discuss the issue of the women’s walking topless. The women refused. However, the police refused to arrest Ms. Moore and Ms. Shilling. Ms. Sipsy, however, made a “citizen’s arrest” of the women, and the police took them to jail. The charges were later dropped. So, to answer the OP, you can answer the door naked, but don’t do it with "“wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design”. It’s probably easier to just put on a robe, though.