Indecent Exposure on Your Own Property

My question involves criminal law for the state of: New York

The neighbor of a relative of mine was exposing himself publicly, but he was not arrested. The relative of mine called the police on this man, who would parade around naked in his yard. He would also leave the blinds open at night with the lights on, exposing himself intentionally. He would just parade around naked basically, clearly trying to get others to see him. Eventually, my relative had enough and called the police on this man. However, the answer she got surprised her and very much surprised me. The police claimed they could do nothing, because he was on his own property. They said that he wasn't committing a crime by lounging around his yard naked and parading nude in front of the window. However, I just found the whole thing puzzling. I mean, there has to be a law against indecent exposure in one's yard. In my opinion, it really seems like there ought to be really if there isn't already. My relative was quite worried by seeing this man's provocatively intended displays in his yard. I know that in addition to "indecent exposure" there also are laws on the books in most states regarding "lewd conduct". I feel like someone exposing themselves in their yard would qualify as well within the realm of "lewd" behavior, even if it wasn't technically indecent exposure given him being located on his own property. I can't possibly see how that wouldn't be considered "lewd" behavior.

Quote:

---

Quoting Steve418

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: New York

The neighbor of a relative of mine was exposing himself publicly, but he was not arrested. The relative of mine called the police on this man, who would parade around naked in his yard. He would also leave the blinds open at night with the lights on, exposing himself intentionally. He would just parade around naked basically, clearly trying to get others to see him. Eventually, my relative had enough and called the police on this man. However, the answer she got surprised her and very much surprised me. The police claimed they could do nothing, because he was on his own property. They said that he wasn't committing a crime by lounging around his yard naked and parading nude in front of the window. However, I just found the whole thing puzzling. I mean, there has to be a law against indecent exposure in one's yard. In my opinion, it really seems like there ought to be really if there isn't already. My relative was quite worried by seeing this man's provocatively intended displays in his yard. I know that in addition to "indecent exposure" there also are laws on the books in most states regarding "lewd conduct". I feel like someone exposing themselves in their yard would qualify as well within the realm of "lewd" behavior, even if it wasn't technically indecent exposure given him being located on his own property.

---

I'm asking this seriously, ok?

Have you ever met any naturists?

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I'm asking this seriously, ok?

Have you ever met any naturists?

---

Yeah, but he lived right next door to her and seemed to be wanting to display himself, which was why she called the police. It also didn't seem to be related to naturism, as from what I had heard it sounded more like an exhibitionist sort of thing than nudism.

Quote:

---

Quoting Steve418

---

Yeah, but he lived right next door to her and seemed to be wanting to display himself, which was why she called the police. It also didn't seem to be related to naturism, as from what I had heard it sounded more like an exhibitionist sort of thing than nudism.

---

The fact remains though, that he's on his own property and entitled to have his lunch box hanging around if he feels like it.

The option of ignoring him is probably the best at the moment. Now, if he actually starts doing something .. the responses may be different. But just the act of walking around nude while (perhaps) cleaning the kitchen floor with a mop singing Willam Belli's latest hit is not something he can be arrested for.

(apologies for the appalling grammar)

You should look up the definition of lewd. What you described does not meet the definition.

It it does violate this law though.

Quote:

---

S 245.01 Exposure of a person.
A person is guilty of exposure if he appears in a public place in such
a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or
exposed. For purposes of this section, the private or intimate parts of
a female person shall include that portion of the breast which is below
the top of the areola. This section shall not apply to the breastfeeding
of infants or to any person entertaining or performing in a play,
exhibition, show or entertainment. Exposure of a person is a violation.

---

the cops do not have to cite the guy though.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

the cops do not have to cite the guy though.

---

Interesting. So, in other words, he was violating the law but they simply made the choice to let him go and not cite him. I kind of wondered if that could have been the case. I could see where the issue of proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult, as unless he was naked in his yard when they got there, it would be difficult to prove in court that the exposure occurred. Would that have been the most likely explanation for him not being cited?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You should look up the definition of lewd. What you described does not meet the definition.

It it does violate this law though.


the cops do not have to cite the guy though.

---

But he was in his own home - the paragraph you quoted is referring to a public place. Or am I missing something? (entirely possible)

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

It it does violate this law though.

---

I’m not sure that it does. The first sentence of the law you quoted says “A person is guilty of exposure if he appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed.” (Italics added.) He is not in a public place, he is on his own private property. If the courts apply the statute literally as written he would not violate that law. I’d want to see the NY case law on it to see if the courts have somehow interpreted to mean something other than it literally says to be sure of that, but on the face of it at least he’s not guilty of exposure.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

But he was in his own home - the paragraph you quoted is referring to a public place. Or am I missing something? (entirely possible)

---

While his home itself is private, if New York does not apply their statute to defining "in public" to include being able to be viewed from a public vantage point they are one of the few that don't.


in addition the statute says "appears in public", not is in a public place. He did appear in public as long as he was viewable from a public vantage point.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

While his home itself is private, if New York does not apply their statute to defining "in public" to include being able to be viewed from a public vantage point they are one of the few that don't.


in addition the statute says "appears in public", not is in a public place. He did appear in public as long as he was viewable from a public vantage point.

---

But he was viewed from a neighbor’s house, not a public sidewalk or street. That neighbor’s house is not a “public place” either. You’d have to really contort the definition of “public place” to fit that into what the OP described.