« General News - Gripes (and a few kudos) about local newspaper websites | Main | Law - "Chicago red-light camera company open to two-tiered ticketing: Rolling right turns may net lower fines" »
Monday, August 10, 2009
Ind. Law - It's the Law: "Public urnination a lesser charge than exposure"
Ken Kosky's weekly NWI Times' "It's the Law" column, an excellent and long-running series, today looks at public nudity:
When it comes to public nudity, Indiana law addresses those people who intentionally show their naked body to someone and those who just happen to get caught urinating behind a building or a tree.Indiana's public indecency/indecent exposure law states it is illegal to engage in sex acts, fondle oneself or expose oneself to another person to arouse oneself or the other person. The misdemeanor offense is punishable by as much as a year in jail, although the second offense is a felony.
Indiana also has a public nudity law, which states appearing nude is public -- like to urinate -- is a lower level misdemeanor punishable by as many as 60 days in jail. It becomes a more serious offense if the violator intended to be seen, if it is a second offense or if it is done on park or school grounds.
The public nudity law was added in 2003 so an act like urination would be a lesser offense than intentionally fondling oneself in a crowd of people.
Porter Superior Court Judge David Chidester said urination is the most common offense to be enforced. He said most offenders enter into a pretrial diversion program and, if they follow the requirements and pay a fee, the charge is dismissed before it gets before his court.
Chidester said people who defend themselves in court have argued that the need to urinate was urgent, or that the officer only saw the back of the person and not the genitalia.
The Court of Appeals reversed one conviction because there was "no evidence ... that he (the arrested person) exposed his penis while urinating." However, in another case, the Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction because the officer approached and saw the man's penis -- even though the man didn't intend to be seen.
As for the necessity defense, Chidester said the act needs to have been done to prevent a significant evil. So, if a person failed to plan ahead and just stopped on a roadside to urinate, he would likely be convicted. If, however, the person unexpectedly got caught in a five-hour traffic jam and ran off to urinate in the woods, he would likely not be convicted, Chidester said.
"The defense of necessity is pretty limited and just having to (urinate) isn't it," Porter County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Matt Frost said.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 10, 2009 09:36 AM
Posted to Indiana Law