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.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

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.

---

He was in his yard, not just in his house (although he would also stand naked in front of the window). His yard was visible from the street, or whoever happened to be in the vicinity. It was fully and completely visible to all that happened to pass by. The "street" was not very busy, as it was located in a neighborhood with very little traffic or passerbys other than those that live there. So, it was public in that sense. He was in his own yard though. To the best of my knowledge he never wandered out into the street naked, although I can't be certain since I only heard what she told me.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

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.

---

He would still appear in public if he was viewable from any public vantage point. I'll not get into the argument of whether a falling tree makes a sound of there is nobody there to hear it.

But if you read all the posts again there was nothing said about the viewer being in his home or on his own property. It simply said the nude guy was named in his yard and in his house where he could be seen through a window.

Were any of the callers willing to go on record as a complainant and sign a private person's arrest?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

He would still appear in public if he was viewable from any public vantage point.

---

If that was the intent, then I would think that the legislature would have written it much like it did the section immediately preceding it, § 245.00, which covers lewdness: “A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be so observed.”

Since the legislature knew how to make it clear that an act committed on private property but viewable from either a public place or from a private premises is forbidden, I would expect it would have drafted § 245.01 the same way if that’s what it intended. That it didn’t would indicate that the exposure law in § 245.01 is more limited in scope in terms where the nude person must be to violate the law than for violating the lewd behavior prohibited in § 245.00. If I were defending him in court this is one of the arguments I would use, since differences in similar statutes like this are a common method courts use to interpret a statute if the court finds the statute is not clear on its face.

I'll probably regret typing this, but here we go ...

Are we seriously up in arms about seeing a naked human? I can't walk around naked in my back yard in case Deb-the-Hawks-Fan from across the street might see me and be offended?

I'm offended by the suggestion that I have to curb my nakedness (apparently that's a real word ... huh ...) on the off-chance that someone might see me. We're fine watching intense violence on the TV, but we're freaking about seeing a naked human?

Baffling.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I'm offended by the suggestion that I have to curb my nakedness (apparently that's a real word ... huh ...) on the off-chance that someone might see me. We're fine watching intense violence on the TV, but we're freaking about seeing a naked human?

Baffling.

---

There are many things I think America does better than the Europeans, but in this area I think they tend to have the better perspective: they don’t get nearly so worked up about sex and nudity as Americans, and they are much more worked up about violence than Americans. I’d rather we do more to curb violence and care a bit less about a neighbor being naked or the sex habits of consensual adults.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

There are many things I think America does better than the Europeans, but in this area I think they tend to have the better perspective: they don’t get nearly so worked up about sex and nudity as Americans, and they are much more worked up about violence than Americans. I’d rather we do more to curb violence and care a bit less about a neighbor being naked or the sex habits of consensual adults.

---

That's exactly where I'm coming from *rapid nodding head emoji*

(I'm the resident Brit, for those who don't know)

Having investigated some of these guys, if he truly is flashing the neighborhood, surely there's a law that can be applied. I'm going to guess that either there was some element of the offense missing, no one would sign the private person's arrest, or the law is unreasonably permissive.

Some time back I dealt with a guy who struck the Captain Morgan pose in his living room window and on his back patio on a daily basis. His activity subjected everyone to his berries and twig and caused a number of parents to have to keep their kids inside as a result. We have laws on the books against this, fortunately, so we did manage to finally get a signer and made an arrest (when he finally opened his door).

There's a difference between casually strolling about the house nude and flaunting it knowing full well that you are visible to the world. The former is a mistake - the latter is uncomfortable and generally criminal.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Having investigated some of these guys, if he truly is flashing the neighborhood, surely there's a law that can be applied. I'm going to guess that either there was some element of the offense missing, no one would sign the private person's arrest, or the law is unreasonably permissive.

Some time back I dealt with a guy who struck the Captain Morgan pose in his living room window and on his back patio on a daily basis. His activity subjected everyone to his berries and twig and caused a number of parents to have to keep their kids inside as a result. We have laws on the books against this, fortunately, so we did manage to finally get a signer and made an arrest (when he finally opened his door).

There's a difference between casually strolling about the house nude and flaunting it knowing full well that you are visible to the world. The former is a mistake - the latter is uncomfortable and generally criminal.

---

I had to Google "Captain Morgan pose".

:eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I had to Google "Captain Morgan pose".

:eek:

---

Eeee-yeeeahh ....

His actions so concerned one of the neighbors that she would not leave work to come home (she waited tables at night at Denny's) until her husband got off work at Wal-Mart at 11 PM. He'd stand in the window and then come out the front door with shorts ON as she ascended the stairs to the apartment next to his. It freaked her out ... and the other neighbors as well. The guy was smart, though. He'd never answer the door when we'd knock, or, if he did, it would be times when we had no one who was willing to sign - mostly because they were young women or kids who were afraid of him.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I'll probably regret typing this, but here we go ...

Are we seriously up in arms about seeing a naked human? I can't walk around naked in my back yard in case Deb-the-Hawks-Fan from across the street might see me and be offended?

I'm offended by the suggestion that I have to curb my nakedness (apparently that's a real word ... huh ...) on the off-chance that someone might see me. We're fine watching intense violence on the TV, but we're freaking about seeing a naked human?

Baffling.

---

the US, in general, for all its claims of freedoms and progressiveness, remains quite prudish when it comes to nudity. While nudity is allowed on television in some other countries, the Janet Jackson debacle where she exposed her nipple shows just how prudish we are here. Personally I didn't have a problem with nudity. If you want to wander around nude where I could see you dogmatique, I've no problem what so ever


the fact remains, in most states there are laws against nudity in public or in the public eye. some states apply a require the to shock, offend, arouse others, or provide some self (sexual) gratification for it to be illegal. Others simply disallow any nudity.


Prudes I tell you, prudes. As a protest I think everybody reading this should strip off their clothes, right now, and run outside nekkid and yell; there is nothing to be ashamed of. This is how Gawd made me and I'm proud of it.



You guys let me know how that works out for you.



As to TM's post. I agree somewhat although I found a few other laws that provide support in the opposite (although not as closely related to the original law cited). I agree some case law is needed to settle it but since I do everything on my phone now it has become more difficult to do that research. It TM would care to do the honors I would have no argument in accepting something that provided some finality.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I'll probably regret typing this, but here we go ...

Are we seriously up in arms about seeing a naked human? I can't walk around naked in my back yard in case Deb-the-Hawks-Fan from across the street might see me and be offended?

I'm offended by the suggestion that I have to curb my nakedness (apparently that's a real word ... huh ...) on the off-chance that someone might see me. We're fine watching intense violence on the TV, but we're freaking about seeing a naked human?

Baffling.

---

If adults can see him, so can children. That is a problem in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If adults can see him, so can children. That is a problem in my eyes.

---

Why? They see themselves naked, they've probably seen their parents naked and maybe even siblings. What's different about a naked stranger? All the bits and pieces are essentially the same, with some variety is size and distribution.

Other cultures don't have an issue with this so why should we? Children are allowed to live in naturist communities and the government has not seen fit to ban that.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If adults can see him, so can children. That is a problem in my eyes.

---

Why? Have you taught your children that seeing a naked body is a problem? I suppose you should never take them to Europe or any art museum that has work by "the masters" where statues and paintings of nudes are common.

And by all means avoid Portland Oregon. They have a nude bike ride every year.

its when you teach a child to be ashamed of nudity and you must hide it is where you change the mental attitudes to make them prudes. Yes, modesty was taught in my household but just the same my kids were also not ashamed of themselves and I don't know how many times one of my kids zoomed through the living room going from their bathroom to mine so they didn't have to share mirror space butt ass naked. I didn't give it a second thought and neither did they

I have a bad feeling the topic of Religion is going to be brought up at some point

The issue is really a struggle between public and private morality. When a government tries to impose, by changing what has always been private morality (what goes on in private property or in someone's home), into public morality you run amuck with the law.

Quote:

---

There is a distinction between public and private morality and the private morality of an individual is not synonymous with nor necessarily will have effect on what is known as public morality (see State v Saunders, 75 NJ 200, 218-220). 490*490 .

---

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...20795596160936 closest case I could find.

Besides, why get all bent out of shape about children seeing the private parts of the opposite sex? Or should I say transgender sex? Our current Administration is threatening to withhold Federal school funds to any school that will not allow transgender individuals to use whatever bathroom or locker room they want. And that is a public place.

It's a perfect example of the State trying to make a public morality of what has always been a private morality.

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.

---

He was not in a public place. He was on his property.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If adults can see him, so can children. That is a problem in my eyes.

---

As long as he is not coming up to children and forcing them to look at him, fondling them, rubbing his genitals against them or doing anything lewd or inappropriate with them while naked, who cares? I would not care if my daughter saw a naked man or woman walk down the street.

This Puritan mentality in our country...even though sex and nudity are all over TV, movies and everything else. I guarantee your kids have already seen nude adults somewhere.

Regardless of whether you or I might like it, or not, the fact is that people who intentionally expose themselves to the public (generally for their own lewd interests) are most often subject to criminal penalties - and rightly so.

There is a difference between incidental and accidental exposure, and someone who flashes the public - adults, children, whomever - for their own purposes.

You can choose not to care all you want, but, if we have codes that tell us what color our houses can be, the size of signage on a public street, and that require lit house numbers, we can certainly regulate who can flash their genitalia to me and to my children. And, we currently do.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Regardless of whether you or I might like it, or not, the fact is that people who intentionally expose themselves to the public (generally for their own lewd interests) are most often subject to criminal penalties - and rightly so.

There is a difference between incidental and accidental exposure, and someone who flashes the public - adults, children, whomever - for their own purposes.

You can choose not to care all you want, but, if we have codes that tell us what color our houses can be, the size of signage on a public street, and that require lit house numbers, we can certainly regulate who can flash their genitalia to me and to my children. And, we currently do.

---

* § 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.

All he has to do is say that he's performing a play or some type of exhibition and he can get away with it. It seems he already has since the police came and did nothing. However if he truly was purposely flashing his genitals they could arrest him based on what I just read about indecent exposure laws.

There are some states (obviously not NY) where there are no laws against public nudity. Kansas is one of them. I saw an article a year or two ago where a guy walked down the street naked in his town. The police could not do anything because there is no law against it. He just took a naked stroll. If I saw a naked guy strolling down the street, I would not even care. If he is being lewd (or a woman too) then that is different.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

He was not in a public place. He was on his property.



As long as he is not coming up to children and forcing them to look at him, fondling them, rubbing his genitals against them or doing anything lewd or inappropriate with them while naked, who cares? I would not care if my daughter saw a naked man or woman walk down the street.

This Puritan mentality in our country...even though sex and nudity are all over TV, movies and everything else. I guarantee your kids have already seen nude adults somewhere.

---

the law says "appears in a public place", not it "in a public place". Light travels without limit unless acted upon so he did in fact appear in a public place. Many states rule that if you are visible from a public vantage point your appearance is considered public for then purpose of the law.

But Obviously you missed the discussion in the thread though.

And appears in a public place does not mean that he can be seen from a public place but that he appears in a public place. You might have an argument if it said appears from a public place. But as it stands, you are really reaching and are incorrect.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If adults can see him, so can children. That is a problem in my eyes.

---

I hate doing this, l, but I gotta tell you - that attitude is part of the problem. Nudity in and of itsef is not shameful, and it's absolutely wrong to teach our kids that it is.

I think we've derailed this thread pretty well. Yes, I know I'm guilty of it too.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Regardless of whether you or I might like it, or not, the fact is that people who intentionally expose themselves to the public (generally for their own lewd interests) are most often subject to criminal penalties - and rightly so.

There is a difference between incidental and accidental exposure, and someone who flashes the public - adults, children, whomever - for their own purposes.

You can choose not to care all you want, but, if we have codes that tell us what color our houses can be, the size of signage on a public street, and that require lit house numbers, we can certainly regulate who can flash their genitalia to me and to my children. And, we currently do.

---

But who is deciding whether walking around naked in your own home is incidental, or deliberately provoking and/or exposing yourself to children? There's a HUGE difference between the two.

... on second thoughts maybe using the word "huge" with such emphasis is a bad idea. :eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

But who is deciding whether walking around naked in your own home is incidental, or deliberately provoking and/or exposing yourself to children? There's a HUGE difference between the two.

... on second thoughts maybe using the word "huge" with such emphasis is a bad idea. :eek:

---

actually, accepting the interpretation that as long as one is on or in their private property nudity in itself is not illegal, as long as the person does not commit a lewd act, exposing ones self intentionally is not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

But who is deciding whether walking around naked in your own home is incidental, or deliberately provoking and/or exposing yourself to children? There's a HUGE difference between the two.

---

That would be the police, the DA, and the court. As with any other law.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually, accepting the interpretation that as long as one is on or in their private property nudity in itself is not illegal, as long as the person does not commit a lewd act, exposing ones self intentionally is not illegal.

---

Depends on the laws of your state. MAYBE in the OP's state flashing the neighbors is legal. It's not that way everywhere.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

But who is deciding whether walking around naked in your own home is incidental, or deliberately provoking and/or exposing yourself to children? There's a HUGE difference between the two.

... on second thoughts maybe using the word "huge" with such emphasis is a bad idea. :eek:

---

If someone forgets to close their curtains or doesn't even think of closing their curtains that is one thing. Lots of people forget or do not think to close their curtains.

However, someone who goes outside without any clothes on knows that they can be seen by the general public. Therefore, therefore in most scenarios I am going to think that they are being deliberately provoking, even if the intent is only to annoy/shock the neighbors.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

If someone forgets to close their curtains or doesn't even think of closing their curtains that is one thing. Lots of people forget or do not think to close their curtains.

However, someone who goes outside without any clothes on knows that they can be seen by the general public. Therefore, therefore in most scenarios I am going to think that they are being deliberately provoking, even if the intent is only to annoy/shock the neighbors.

---

To each their own.

If someone wants to be a nudist and prance about naked, that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. However, do it where everyone else is aware of it - a nude beach, a nudist colony/resort, your own home (with curtains closed and a proper fence). It is not fair to subject others to visuals that they do not want to see. I have no great desire to observe naked people prancing about. I can understand the accidental exposure, but, to intentionally flaunt one's self is a different animal, and, for the most part, unlawful.

Y'all are lucky you haven't spotted me dancing naked under the full moon in my back garden.

(And you don't know whether I'm joking or serious, do you? Well .. my beloved cbg would know. But otherwise ... ;) :D )