Can You Be Charged With A 'Sex Crime' For Urinating In Public?

[Surreal]

I’ve heard stories of men who have claimed that they were charged with a ‘sex crime’, and were required to register as a ‘sex offender’, simply because they were caught urinating in public with their flaccid genitalia exposed. Can this possibly be true?

Does this mean it is no longer safe for us to extinguish campfires, de-ice windows and frozen door locks, or write our names in the snow?

Thanks.

[Walloon]

Were they really accidentally “caught” urinating in public? It’s all too easy for an exhibitionist to protest “I was just peeing” when apprehended – from what I’ve read, it’s a common excuse.

[LookingAround]

If you are peeing in a dark alley, not sexual, if your peeing next to a childrens playground in daylight probably sexual IMHO

[Gfactor]

@Surreal

I’ve heard stories of men who have claimed that they were charged with a ‘sex crime’, and were required to register as a ‘sex offender’, simply because they were caught urinating in public with their flaccid genitalia exposed. Can this possibly be true?

Does this mean it is no longer safe for us to extinguish campfires, de-ice windows and frozen door locks, or write our names in the snow?

Thanks.

Indecent exposure for starters. You’d have to check your state’s sex offender registration statute to see if that would require registration.

[Surreal]

Update: A recent article in The Economist says that you could be labeled a ‘sex offender’ in at least 13 states for public urination.

Unjust and ineffective

A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

[Rigamarole]

@Surreal

Update: A recent article in The Economist says that you could be labeled a ‘sex offender’ in at least 13 states for public urination.

Unjust and ineffective

I’d like to know which states those are - the article doesn’t seem to list them.

[Sigmagirl]

Well, this poor lady was charged with lewd and lascivious behavior because she couldn’t hold it. The charges were dropped only because of public outrcy; the city seemed to have every intention of proceeding with the suit.
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/52590657.html

[DanBlather]

I know a case where an elderly mentally challenged man was urinating near a subway station. He was arrested for indecent exposure and if convicted would have been a registered sex-offender. With the help of a good and expensive lawyer the charges were dropped.

[Gfactor]

@Rigamarole

I’d like to know which states those are - the article doesn’t seem to list them.

Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination—two if
exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code §314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut,
Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-186, §54-250, §54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. §42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of
a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. §18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.148, §17.520, 500, §510.150;
Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §16, ALM GL ch. 6 §178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §167(1)(f), §28.722,
723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. §582.21, §1021; South
Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. §77-27-21.5, §76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, §2601,
§5407, 5401.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0907webwcover.pdf

[RealityChuck]

The reason for the law was to make it easier to prosecute flashers. Men would expose themselves (purely to show off), then argue if they were caught that the victim was mistaken and that they were only urinating. In order to remove that defense, some states made it a sex crime.

[Markxxx]

A lot of these things come under, what I term as “umbrella regulations.” For instance, in H/R there is a thing called “Creating a hostile working envirnoment.” This falls under the scope of “Sexual Harrassment.”

Supposing I wore way too much cologne and refused to correct said behaviour. Or suppose I put up a copy of “the Ten Comandments,” in a public place at work. After meeting with H/R I refused to alter said behavour.

You could be dismissed for “sexual harrassment,” even though the “Ten Commandments” or “wearing too much cologne,” have nothing to do with sex.

The offenses fall under the “sexual harrassment umbrella.”

So the laws are written in a similar way.

[gonzomax]

@RealityChuck

The reason for the law was to make it easier to prosecute flashers. Men would expose themselves (purely to show off), then argue if they were caught that the victim was mistaken and that they were only urinating. In order to remove that defense, some states made it a sex crime.

Has flashing ever been that common a crime? Peeing is a normal need. To put it in the same category seems to be stretching a lot.

[Gfactor]

@RealityChuck

The reason for the law was to make it easier to prosecute flashers. Men would expose themselves (purely to show off), then argue if they were caught that the victim was mistaken and that they were only urinating. In order to remove that defense, some states made it a sex crime.

Actually, in most cases like this, it’s because it’s covered by the indecent exposure statute and there’s no carve out for peeing against a building (I was once threatened with arrest for that very offense.) I just wrote a staff report that covers this stuff, and I don’t want to spoil it, but at common law, you could be charged with indecent exposure even if nobody could see you. Some states have made added requirements like the exposure must be likely to “offend or alarm,” adding a mens rea requirement, or requiring that the exposure be where others actually are instead of the broader “someone might be able to see” standard. A few actually require that the exposure be to a member of the opposite sex.

If you take a look at a few of the statutes from my cite, you’ll see what I mean:

@Arizona

A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

Arizona Legislature (this is the underlying offense–the cite is to the sex offender registration statute).

@Califormia

B. Indecent exposure does not include an act of breast-feeding by a mother.

C. Indecent exposure to a person who is fifteen or more years of age is a class 1 misdemeanor. Indecent exposure to a person who is under fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony.
314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

 1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any

public place, or in any place where there are present other persons
to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,
2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose
himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any
other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number
of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite
to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Every person who violates subdivision 1 of this section after
having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or
trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the
inhabited portion of any other building, is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail not exceeding
one year.
Upon the second and each subsequent conviction under subdivision 1
of this section, or upon a first conviction under subdivision 1 of
this section after a previous conviction under Section 288, every
person so convicted is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by
imprisonment in state prison.

@Georgia

§ 16-6-8. Public indecency

(a) A person commits the offense of public indecency when he or she performs any of the following acts in a public place:

(1) An act of sexual intercourse;

(2) A lewd exposure of the sexual organs;

(3) A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity; or

(4) A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person.

http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

@Idaho

18-4116.Indecent exposure. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:
(1) Exposes his or her genitals, in any public place, or in any place where there is present another person or persons who are offended or annoyed thereby; or,
(2) Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose his or her genitals, where there is present another person or persons who are offended or annoyed thereby is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section or a similar statute in another state or any local jurisdiction for a second time within five (5) years, notwithstanding the form of the judgment(s) or withheld judgment(s), is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a period not to exceed ten (10) years

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH41SECT18-4116.htm

[JRDelirious]

@gonzomax

Has flashing ever been that common a crime? Peeing is a normal need. To put it in the same category seems to be stretching a lot.

Yes, but idea behind this application of the law, by which it’s an offense in and of itself for the citizen for any reason to drop trou or whip it out in a public space when and where someone else can see it, was that if you’re legitimately caught short, you’ll head into the woods or otherwise make sure you find the requisite privacy to take care of your business, so we’ll never know you did it.

As just mentioned, many localities are now adjusting the statute so it’s better defined. Where some states and localities blow it is when defining certain things as “sex crimes” and which incur a liability to enter the offenders registry, and they fail to make an appropriate distinction between truly predatory/high risk conduct and that which is merely distasteful.

[Soul]

An acquaintance of mine is now a registered sex offender because he urinated in public. A young girl (think six or seven years old) saw him doing it and it got pretty serious pretty quickly.

In fact, his propensity to get blackout drunk in public and wave his pecker around is one of many reasons he has been and will always remain just an acquaintance, never a friend.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Ohio is pretty conservative when it comes to law and order, and in many years of court experience I’ve never heard of anyone charged with a sex crime, or designated a sexually-oriented offender, for urinating in public. Indecent exposure or creating a public nuisance, more often than not, with a fine and probation, never jailed.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

Hooo boy. I attend a folk fest where it’s a common practice for campers to add some nitrogen to the soil, b/c people don’t want to deal with porta potties. I wonder if it’s more like an addition to a charge…like the way a particuarly egregious sex offender could be charged with sodomy, plus rape or child molestation in a state that has that offense on the books

[DrDeth]

@Gfactor

Actually, in most cases like this, it’s because it’s covered by the indecent exposure statute and there’s no carve out for peeing against a building (I was once threatened with arrest for that very offense.) I just wrote a staff report that covers this stuff, and I don’t want to spoil it, but at common law, you could be charged with indecent exposure even if nobody could see you. Some states have made added requirements like the exposure must be likely to “offend or alarm,” adding a mens rea requirement, or requiring that the exposure be where others actually are instead of the broader “someone might be able to see” standard. A few actually require that the exposure be to a member of the opposite sex.

If you take a look at a few of the statutes from my cite, you’ll see what I mean:

Originally Posted by Califormia
B. Indecent exposure …
314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

]

Note that word “lewdly”. Apparently in CA, it is not unknown for the Police to charge a dude for “Indecent exposure” for a act of simple public urination (some lawyers mention this as one of their specialties, anyway) and it appears (talking to some of my buddies) that it’s nearly always dropped- *if *you get that lawyer.

IANAL, but I suggest you don’t urinate in public- however if you are charged with a “sex crime” in connection with it, you hire a good lawyer.
As usual: if arrested, STFU, and get a lawyer. Once the handcuffs are on or they have read you your rights, do not attempt to talk your way out- that;s what lawyers are for. Say only “I want to speak to my/an attorney” and “Am I free to go?”. This is from the ACLU, not DrDeth.

[Morkfromork]

You can be in the uk. A few yeas ago we were at a bus stop when a man pulled out his tadger and waved it about. I aked hm what he was doing and he looked at my wife nd started to smirk. i wanted to drag him to the back of the toilets and gave him a kickin. Unfortunatly my wife would not let me. He has now been reprted on numerous occasions but his social worker always gets him off. She says he has a bladder problem. Does this explain why he meets men in public toilets as well.

[Gfactor]

@DrDeth

Note that word “lewdly”. Apparently in CA, it is not unknown for the Police to charge a dude for “Indecent exposure” for a act of simple public urination (some lawyers mention this as one of their specialties, anyway) and it appears (talking to some of my buddies) that it’s nearly always dropped- *if *you get that lawyer.

There’s a California Supreme Court case where a guy was charged indecent exosure after officers witnessed him urinating on a retaining wall outside a Taco Bell (the bathroom was unavailable). He pled guilty, and then found out he’d have to register as a sex offender. The court let him withdraw his plea. See In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973).

Here is an excerpt:

In July 1972 petitioner, James Birch, appeared before the Los Angeles Municipal Court without counsel and entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge of violating Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), which proscribes engaging in “. . . lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view.” Birch now seeks a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of his guilty plea on several grounds. As discussed below, we have concluded that petitioner’s conviction must be set aside because the record does not reveal that Birch was properly advised prior to his plea either of his right to counsel or of the sex registration requirement flowing directly from a conviction under section 647, subdivision (a)

The record is meagre as to the events which culminated in petitioner’s arrest but, according to petitioner’s allegations, the facts are as follows: At approximately 1:30 a.m. on the morning of July 24, 1972, petitioner and three friends, after having consumed a six-pack of beer, came to the Taco Bell restaurant located at Lassen and Sepulveda in Los Angeles. Although the restaurant was closing for the night, they arrived in time to order some food. Petitioner desired to use the restroom but was informed that it had been cleaned and closed for the night. After returning to his car to eat, he was forced to relieve himself. He left the car and urinated while standing next to the vehicle and facing a retaining wall which was approximately 40 feet from the restaurant and encompassed it on three sides. The parking area was illuminated by one lamp located 50 feet from petitioner. Unknown to him, two police officers sitting in an unmarked car on Lassen Street observed him and proceeded to place him under arrest for lewd and dissolute conduct.