Tweet
Link to: The Legal FAQ for some states, On the Net.
The Legal FAQ, rev. 3/1/95
Please email contributions and suggestions. This FAQ is available on the WWW
(http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu:8001/~brahm/legal.html), and also appears in the
Naturist Home Page was [(http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~kr4ah/naturist/naturist.html)],
is now http://www.realtime.net:80/~kr4ah.
It contains hyperlinks to some court case texts.
To find your state, search for its 2-letter code in brackets, e.g. [CA]. We
currently have entries for CA, FL, LA, MN, NH, NY, OH, PA, RI, TX, UT, WA,
and WI. There is also a section on U.S. federal law and Canadian law.
Contributors are footnoted, e.g. [*01].
Disclaimers:
1) "Concurrent Jurisdiction" means one entity's laws (e.g. L.A. County) may be
enforced on another entity's land (e.g. Point Dume State Park).
2) Other laws (such as the catch-all "disorderly conduct") may also apply.
3) Judges are not always logical, literal-minded, or consistent.
4) I'm a physicist, Jim, not a lawyer.
-- David Brahm ([email protected])
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** United States [US]: *****************************
************************************************** ****************************
The U.S. Supreme Court, in
_Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc._, 111 S.Ct. 2456 (1991) [*09], "concluded
that the enforcement of Indiana's public indecency law to prevent totally nude
dancing does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of
expression." Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "This governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free expression, since public nudity is the
evil the State seeks to prevent, whether or not it is combined with expressive
activity."
This 5-4 decision means nudity is not (protected) free speech in the U.S., and
has been used (e.g. by Clearwater, FL) to argue that states and communities may
regulate the conduct of appearing nude in public places, such as a beach.
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** California [CA]: *****************************
************************************************** ****************************
Summary: [*01]
State law is tolerant of non-sexual nudity, having established in 1972 that
"nude is not lewd", but there are many local anti-nudity ordinances. There is
a CA Adminstrative Code limiting nude use of State Parks (and beaches) to
"traditional locations". Under the Cahill Policy (1977), the State Parks and
Recreation Dept. will act upon a complaint by asking you to dress, after which
you may not disrobe again that day. If you comply, no citation is issued.
----------
| CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, Section 314 (Indecent exposure): [*02]
| 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.
----------
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT decision "In re Smith" (excerpts):
(In re Smith (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807.)
"A person does not expose his private parts 'lewdly' within the meaning of
Penal Code, Section 314, condemning indecent exposure, unless his conduct is
sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but
intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for
purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.
"Absent additional conduct intentionally directing attention to his genitals
for sexual purposes, a person who simply sunbathes in the nude on an isolated
beach does not 'lewdly' expose his private parts within the meaning of Penal
Code, Section 314, condemning indecent exposure."
Note that persons who are found guilty under Section 314 must register as sex
offenders, according to CA Penal Code Section 290. [*20]
----------
| CA Administrative Code, Div. 3, Title 14, Sec. 4322 ('Nudity') reads: [*03]
| No person shall appear nude while in any unit of the state park system except
| in authorized areas set aside for that purpose. The word nude as used herein
| means unclothed or in such a state of undress as to expose any part or
| portion of the pubic or anal region or genitalia or any portion of the breast
| at or below the areola thereof of any female.
----------
Although this clearly states nudity is not allowed the implementation of this
policy was dictated by then State Parks Superintendent Russell Cahill in 1977
and is still in effect today. Known as 'The Cahill Policy' it says: [*03]
"enforcement of nude sunbathing regulations within the State Park System shall
be made only upon the complaint of a private citizen. Citations or arrests
shall be made only after attempts are made to elicit voluntary compliance"
Which means it is legal to be nude as long as no one complains and then you
will be given a chance to cover up before being cited. Furthermore, in 1986
there was a case, John Bost vs California, in which a man was asked to cover
up because of a complaint on one day and complied. The next day the same man
was nude again in the same place and was given a citation by the same ranger.
He was found guilty in his initial court visit but the conviction was
overturned on appeal. The appellate court said (in part):
"Further activities of a person so warned are prohibited for the balance
of the day, but activities on later days are proscribed only if preceded
by a new public complaint and renewed warning."
Which means you can pick a spot (on State Park System land) and get naked
until someone complains, then cover-up or leave and return the next day and
do it all over again. This assumes the enforcement officers know about the
Cahill policy and court ruling. If they don't then you may get cited with
no warning and/or no complaint. You should be able to fight it and win but
I am NOT A LAWYER so what I say don't mean **** in court.
========= Los Angeles County =========
----------
| Los Angeles County - Ordinance 17.12.360, "Nudity and Disrobing": [*01]
| A) No person shall appear, bathe, sunbathe, walk, change clothes, disrobe or
| be on any beach in such manner that the genitals, vulva, pubis, pubic
| symphysis, pubic hair, buttocks, natal cleft, perineum, anus, anal region
| or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the breast at or
| below the upper edge of the areola thereof of any female person, is
| exposed to public view, except in those portions of a comfort station, if
| any, expressly set aside for such purpose.
| B) This section shall not apply to persons under the age of 10 years,
| provided such children are sufficiently clothed to conform to accepted
| community standards.
| C) This section shall not apply to persons engaged in a live theatrical
| performance in a theater, concert hall, or similar establishment which is
| primarily devoted to theatrical performances.
----------
========= Berkeley =========
Reacting to Andrew Martinez ("the Naked Guy"), a Berkeley student who went nude
on and around campus in 1992 (and was later expelled), the Berkeley City
Council passed an ordinance prohibiting public nudity. [*01]
========= San Diego =========
In 1974 Black's Beach was officially designated clothing-optional, but this
designation was later rescinded. [*01]
----------
| San Diego, California, Municipal Code 56.53: Nudity on Public Lands: [*10]
|
| a. PURPOSE AND INTENT. The presence of persons who are nude and exposed to
| public view in or on public rights of way, public parks, public beaches or
| any other public land or in or on any private property open to public view
| from any public right of way, public beach, public park, or other public
| land, is offensive to members of the general public unwillingly exposed to
| such persons. The provisions of this section are enacted for the purpose of
| securing and promoting the public health, morals and general welfare of all
| persons in the City of San Diego.
|
| b. DEFINITIONS. Whenever in this section the word "nude" is used, it shall
| mean devoid of an opaque covering which covers the genitals, pubic hair,
| buttocks, perineum, anus, or anal region of any person, or any portion of the
| breast at or below the areola thereof of any female person. "Whenever in
| this section the term "public right of way" is used, it shall mean any place
| of any nature which is dedicated to use by the public for pedestrian and
| vehicular travel, and includes, but is not limited to, a street, sidewalk,
| curb, gutter, crossing, intersection, parkway, highway, alley, lane, mall,
| court, way, avenue, boulevard, road, roadway, viaduct, subway, tunnel,
| bridge, thoroughfare, square, and any other similar public way.
|
| c. NUDITY PROHIBITED. No person over the age of ten years shall be nude and
| exposed to public view in or on any public right of way, public park, public
| beach or waters adjacent thereto, or other public land, or in or on any
| private property open to public view from any public right of way, public
| beach, public park, or other public land.
|
| d. The provisions of this section shall not apply to live theatrical
| performances performed in a theater, concert hall, or other similar
| establishment located on public land. As used in this section, theater,
| concert hall or similar establishment means a building, playhouse, room, hall
| or other enclosed place not open to public view from any public right of way
| but having a stage upon which movable scenery is located and theatrical,
| vaudeville or similar performances are given and seats so arranged that a
| body of spectators can have an unobstructed view of the stage and whose
| primary function is to give such performances.
----------
========= San Jose =========
----------
| San Jose Municipal Code 0.12.030: [*15]
|
| A. No person over the age of ten years shall be nude and exposed to public
| view in or upon any public right-of-way public park, public lands, or in or
| upon any private property open to the public view from any such park,
| right-of-way or public property.
|
| B. as used in this section, "nude" means devoid of any opaque covering of
| the genitals,pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus or anal region of any
| person; or any portion of the breast, at or below the areola thereof, of any
| female person.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
************************ Florida [FL]: *******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| 800.03 Exposure of sexual organs. [*09]
|
| It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the
| private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such
| private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public
| except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of
| this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in
| s.775.082 or 775.083. A mother's breast feeding of her baby does not under
| any circumstance violate this section.
----------
In Hoffman v. Carson (1971) the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the "vulgar or
indecent" clause in Florida Statute 800.03 does not apply to mere nudity
without lewd and lascivious intent [*14]. According to [*16], this decision
means mere nudity is not illegal under FL law. Attempts have subsequently
been made in the FL legislature to broaden 800.03.
========= Clearwater =========
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: [*09]
_Section 1_. A new Section 21.13, Code of Ordinances, is created to read:
----------
| Sec. 21.13. Public Nudity.
|
| (1) As used in this section:
| (a) "Adult use establishment" means an establishment as defined in
| sec. 41.505 of the city code.
| (b) "Entity" means any proprietorship, partnership, corporation,
| association, business trust, joint venture, joint- stock company or other
| for profit or not for profit organization.
| (c) "Nude" means the showing of:
| 1. Human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a
| fully opaque covering; or
| 2. Any portion of the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or
| female buttocks. Attire that is insufficient to comply with this
| requirement includes, but is not limited to, G-strings, T-backs, thongs and
| any other clothing or covering that does not completely and opaquely cover
| the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female buttocks; or
| 3. The portion of the human female breast directly or laterally
| below a point immediately above the top of the areola with less than a
| fully opaque covering; this definition shall include the entire lower
| portion of the human female breast, but shall not include any portion of
| the cleavage of the human female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse,
| shirt, leotard, bathing suit, or other clothing, provided the areola is not
| exposed; or
| 4. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if
| completely and opaquely covered.
| (d) "Person" means any live human being ten years of age or older.
| (e) "Place provided and set apart for nudity" means enclosed
| single-sex public restrooms; enclosed single-sex functional shower, locker
| or dressing room facilities; enclosed motel rooms and hotel rooms designed
| and intended for sleeping accommodations; areas within doctor's offices,
| medical clinics, hospitals, and other licensed medical health care
| facilities designed and intended for the examination of patients; and
| similar places in which nudity is necessarily and customarily expected
| outside of the home and the sphere of privacy constitutionally protected
| therein. This term shall not be deemed to include places where a person's
| conduct of being nude is used for his or her profit or where being nude is
| used for the promotion of business or is otherwise commercially exploited.
| (f) "Public place" means any location frequented by the public, or
| where the public is present or likely to be present, or where a person may
| reasonably be expected to be observed by members of the public. The term
| includes but is not limited to streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches, business
| and commercial establishments (whether for profit or not for profit,
| whether open to the public at large, or whether entrance is limited by a
| cover charge or membership requirement), hotels, motels, restaurants, night
| clubs, cabarets, and meeting facilities utilized by any religious, social,
| fraternal or similar organization. Premises, or portions thereof such as
| hotel rooms, used solely as a private residence, whether permanent or
| temporary in nature, shall not be deemed to be a public place.
|
| (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or
| intentionally appear, or cause another person to appear, nude in a public
| place or in any other place that is readily visible to the public, except
| as provided in subsection (3) of this section. It shall also be unlawful
| for any person or entity maintaining, owning, or operating any public place
| to operate and to knowingly or with reason to know, permit or allow any
| person to appear nude in such a public place, except as provided in
| subsection (3) of this section.
|
| (3) The following shall be exempt from the prohibitions of
| subsection (2) of this section:
| (a) When a person appears nude in a place provided or set apart for
| nudity, provided such person is nude for the sole purpose of performing the
| legal function that is customarily intended to be performed within such
| place and such person is not nude for the purpose of obtaining money or
| other financial gain for such person or for another person or entity;
| (b) When a mother is breast-feeding her baby in compliance with
| Section 383.015, Florida Statutes; or
| (c) When the conduct of being nude cannot legally be prohibited by
| this ordinance because it constitutes a part of a bona fide live
| communication, demonstration or performance by a person wherein such nudity
| is expressive conduct protected by the United States Constitution or the
| Florida Constitution. Nude dancers performing in adult use establishments
| shall not be exempt from the prohibitions of subsection (2) of this
| section.
| (d) When a person appears nude for legitimate instructional purposes
| for authorized courses at community colleges, state universities, or other
| public or private institutions of higher learning.
|
| (4) This section shall not be deemed to address photographs, movies,
| video presentations, or any other non-live performance.
|
| _Section 2_. This ordinance shall take effect 60 days from adoption.
| PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
| READING AND ADOPTED AS AMENDED February 17, 1994
----------
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** Louisiana [LA]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
From West's Louisiana handbook: [*04]
----------
| 106. Obscenity
| A. The crime of obscenity is the intentional:
| (1) Exposure of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast
| nipples in any public place or place open to the public view with the intent
| of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest or is
| patently offensive.
----------
It then goes on for a page and a half to list various porn stuff lacking
literary, artistic, etc. value and then lists exemptions such as schools,
churches, museums, etc. It also states that cities and parishes (counties) can
pass laws, but cannot EXCEED the scope.
...The owner [of a camp] was arrested for "indecent exposure" with the classic
"tell it to the judge". His attorney did tell it to the judge, who, like most
folks believed there really was such a thing as "indecent exposure" in our
state. After reading 106 the judge dismissed the whole thing and instructed the
sheriff's dept. to "leave these people alone".
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** Minnesota [MN]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| 6100.1600 SWIMMING IN STATE PARKS. [*10]
| Activities in and upon the beaches and swimming areas shall be under the
| direction of the lifeguard, if one is present.
| It is unlawful to swim in or enter any body of water or area where
| prohibited.
| It is unlawful in any area where swimming is not prohibited, including
| designated beaches, to:
| A. allow any dog or other pet to enter the water with swimmers;
| B. while in the water, use air mattresses, inner tubes, and other flotation
| devices not approved by the Coast Guard, except when an area is
| specifically designated for that use;
| C. enter the water before sunrise or after sunset;
| D. engage in any activity which is hazardous and could cause injury to
| others; or
| E. use any soap, detergent, or shampoo.
| In addition to items A to E, it is unlawful on designated beaches to possess
| glass containers; enter with any boat, canoe, or raft; fish; or change
| clothes except in a facility designated for that use, where a facility is
| provided.
----------
========= Minneapolis, Minnesota, Park and Recreation Board =========
----------
| PB2-21 (1982) Proper Attire Required. No person 10 years of age or older
| shall intentionally expose his or her own genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or
| female breast below the top of the areola, with less than a fully opaque
| covering in or upon any park or parkway, as defined in PB1-1. This provision
| does not apply to theatrical, musical, or other artistic performances upon
| any park or parkway where no alcoholic beverages are sold.
----------
Lee Ann Turner was arrested on September 8, 1983, for sunbathing topless at
Wirth Lake in Minneapolis. Turner was found guilty and appealed on First
Amendment grounds of free expression. The appeals court noted that the
Minnesota Supreme Court held that "nudity is not protected expression, but
conduct, which the city has a substantial interest in regulating via its police
power... PB2-21 does not unconstitutionally infringe on Turner's right to free
speech granted by the United States or Minnesota constitutions." [*10]
Turner also claimed that "the ordinance creates an unconstitutional
gender-based classification," this violating the equal protection clauses of
the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions. The appeals court concluded: "PB2-21
advances a legislate governmental interest in the preservation of public
decency and order... The female breasts, unlike male breasts, constitute an
erogenous zone and are commonly associated with sexual arousal. Common
knowledge tells us that there is a real difference between the sexes with
respect to breasts, which is reasonably related to the preservation of public
decorum and morals... There being such a difference between the breasts of
males and females (however undiscernible to the naked eye of some), and that
difference having a reasonable relationship to the legitimate legislative
purpose which it serves, the ordinance does not deny equality of rights or
impose unequal responsibilities on women. Protection of society's norms is a
legitimate legislative goal. The slight difference in clothing requirements
imposed on the two sexes is necessary if the legislative purpose is to be
served... In certain narrow circumstances, a gender classification based on
clear differences between the sexes is not invidious, and a legislative
classification realistically based upon those differences is not
unconstitutional. When men and women are not in fact similarly situated in the
area covered by the legislation in question, the Equal Protection Clause does
not mean that the physiological differences between men and women must be
disregarded. While those differences must never be permitted to become a
pretext for invidious discrimination, no such discrimination is presented by
this case. The Constitution surely does not require a State to pretend that
demonstrable differences between men and women do not really exist."
------------------------------------------
Resolution adopted by the City of Minneapolis
Democrat-Farm-Labor (DFL) party, June 12, 1993
------------------------------------------
"The policy of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board shall be to validate
the clothing optional nature of Hidden Beach on Cedar Lake by having it posted
to notify visitors that they may encounter nude sunbathers, by instituting a
patrol of the beach to ensure the safety of all park users, and by repealing
the ordinance that prohibits nudity, PB2-21, if necessary, and
"that this is an experiment for one year, that after the one year open public
hearings shall be held to discover the public will as regards the future of
clothing optionality at Hidden Beach and/or its expansion to other possible
sites within the city parks."
========= suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota =========
----------
| PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH, MORALS, AND WELFARE [*10]
|
| 164. Various Offenses.
|
| 164.040. Indecent or Immoral Conduct.
| No person shall appear in any street or public place in the City in a state
| of nudity, or in a dress not belonging to his or her sex, or in any indecent
| or lewd dress, or be guilty of any obscene or filthy act, or of any lewd,
| indecent, immoral, or insulting conduct, language or behavior, or shall
| exhibit, sell, or offer to sell any indecent or lewd book, picture or other
| thing, or shall exhibit or perform any lewd play, or other representation.
|
| 164.120. Indecent Exposure.
| No person shall willfully, within the city, lewdly expose his/her person or
| the private parts thereof in any place where others are present, or in any
| public place, or shall procure another so to expose himself/herself.
|
| PETTY OFFENSES
|
| 1201. DISORDERLY CONDUCT
|
| 1201.020 INDECENT EXPOSURE.
| Any person or persons who shall appear in any street or public place in said
| City in a state of nudity, or in a dress not belonging to his or her sex, or
| in any indecent or lewd dress, or shall make any indecent exposure of his or
| her person, or be guilty of any obscene or filthy act, or of any law,
| indecent, immoral or insulting conduct, language or behavior, or shall
| exhibit, sell or offer to sell, any indecent or lewd book, picture or other
| thing or shall exhibit or perform any indecent, immoral or lewd play or other
| representation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
********************* New Hampshire [NH]: ****************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| State of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 645:1 [*06]
| INDECENT EXPOSURE AND LEWDNESS. A person is guilty of a misdemeanour if he
| fornicates, exposes his genitals or performs any other act of gross lewdness
| under circumstances which he should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
************************ New York [NY]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
The Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York State) in People v.
Santorelli, July 7, 1992, construed NY Penal Law sec. 245.01 (which bars public
display of the female breast "below the top of the areola") as applying only
under narrow circumstances, such as where the woman's conduct is "lewd" or
performed in a commercial setting (topless bar, for example). [*07]
An excerpt from the full text:
The People have made no attempt below and make none before us to demonstrate
that the statute's discriminatory effect serves an important governmental
interest or that the classification is based on a reasoned predicate.
More recently, NY passed a law imposing severe penalties on any establishment
which attempted to prevent a woman from breast-feeding [text, anyone?]. [*01]
************************************************** ****************************
************************* Ohio [OH]: *********************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Section 2907.09 -- Public Indecency [*05]
| (A) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under
| circumstances in which his or her conduct is likely to
| be viewed by and affront others, not members of his or
| her household:
| (1) Expose his or her private parts, or engage in masturbation;
| (2) Engage in sexual conduct;
| (3) Engage in conduct which to an ordinary observer would appear
| to be sexual conduct or masturbation.
| (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of public indecency,
| a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
|
| Section 2901.22
| (C) A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to
| the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that
| his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely
| to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect
| to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the
| consequences, he perversely disregards a know risk that such
| circumstances are likely to exist.
----------
Under this, only the exposure of the genitals is illegal (in fact, there is a
court case (in Cincinnati, the bluenose capitol of Ohio) in which they tried a
woman for supposedly exposing her nipples.
The ruling was that, even if she had exposed her nipples, it didn't matter,
since nipples are not private parts (State v Parenteau, Ohio Misc 2d 10, 11).
Thus, while nude is not legal in Ohio, thongs and topless are. (Also note that
cities have the power to make more restrictive laws.)
========= Akron [*09] =========
The city of Akron wrote a stronger public indecency ordinance, outlawing all
public nudity, which was struck down as overly broad. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (6th Circuit), in Triplett Grille,
Inc. v. City of Akron, ruled that:
"Because the City has failed to demonstrate a link between
nudity in non-adult entertainment and secondary effects, we do
agree with the district court that the Akron ordinance must be
struck down as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment
overbreadth doctrine."
************************************************** ****************************
********************** Pennsylvania [PA]: ****************************
************************************************** ****************************
(From the Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia...) [*01]
----------
| Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes sec. 3127, "Indecent Exposure":
| A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, for the purpose of
| arousing or gratifying sexual desire fo himself or of any person other than
| his spouse, he exposes his genitals under circumstances in which he knows his
| conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.
----------
----------
| Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes sec. 5901, "Open Lewdness":
| A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does any lewd act
| which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or
| alarmed.
----------
Examples given include nude motorist who asks for directions.
The courts downplay the need to prove intent:
Gravamen of indecent exposure is exposure of genitals under circumstances
where actor knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm - Com. v.
Whetstine, 1985, 496 A.2d 777, 344 Pa.Super. 246, app.den.
Neither indecent exposure act nor open lewdness act require proof of intent
to affront or alarm general public - Com. v. Back, 1978, 389 A.2d 141, 255
Pa.Super. 603.
But indecent exposure must be "public":
To sustain charge of open lewdness, lewdness must be "open", "notorious" or
"public" and the legislative mandate was not satisfied with evidence of
lewdness committed during hours of darkness, in a private dwelling, subject
to observation only by persons not obligated so to do, looking through
windows of their own dwelling into the dwelling of the alleged offender via
the latter's windows. - Com. v. Helms, 38 D. and C.2d 496, 79 York 177, 1966.
************************************************** ****************************
********************** Rhode Island [RI]: ****************************
************************************************** ****************************
The Boston Globe of 5/20/94 ("Ruling Pleases Nudist Club in R.I.") reported
[*08] that "Members of a nudist club plan to go ahead and open a clothes-
optional beach here [in South Kingstown, RI] after a judge's ruling that no
special zoning exemption was required."
"The ruling, by Superior Court Judge Melanie Famiglietti, overturned a decision
by the town's zoning board that the group must obtain an exemption to operate
the half-acre beach it bought last year."
However, this ruling was overturned [*19] by the Rhode Island Supreme Court on
9/30/94 in New England Naturist ***'n v. George, 648 A.2d 370 (R.I. 1994).
Interestingly, although NENA has to comply with the zoning ordinance, nothing
is said about the (il)legality of nude sunbathing per se.
************************************************** ****************************
************************** Texas [TX]: *******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Texas 1993-1994 penal code [*17],[*18]
| TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
|
| Section 21.08: Indecent Exposure
| (a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his
| genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
| person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be
| offended or alarmed by his act.
| (b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor
|
| Section 42.01: Disorderly Conduct
| (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
| (12) Exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless
| about whether another may be present who will be offended or
| alarmed by his act.
| (c) For purposes of this section, an act is deemed to occur in a public
| place ... if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in
| the public place....
| (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor....
|
| Penalties:
| Class B misdemeanor -- fine of up to $2,000; jail for up to 180 days.
| Class C misdemeanor -- fine of up to $500; no jail.
----------
The rule of thumb along Texas beaches is to carry a sign to warn other people
when they are approaching your nude use area (thus avoiding "recklessness").
************************************************** ****************************
************************** Utah [UT]: ********************************
************************************************** ****************************
State statue says: [*12]
----------
| a person is guilty of lewdness if he "exposes his genitals or private parts
| ... under circumstances which he should know will likely cause affront or
| alarm or does any such act in a public place."
----------
************************************************** ****************************
********************** Washington [WA]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Washington state code RCW 9A.88.010, Indecent Exposure: [*13]
|
| (1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he (sic) intentionally makes
| any open and obscene exposure of his (sic) person or the person of another
| knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
|
| (2) Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor unless such person exposes himself
| (sic) to a person under the age of fourteen years in which case indecent
| exposure is a gross misdemeanor on the first offense and, if such person has
| previously been convicted under this subsection or of a sex offense as
| defined in RCW 9.94A.030, then such person is guilty of a class C felony
| punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
----------
========= Seattle [*13] =========
Seattle Municipal Code SMC 12A.10.070 was found "overly broad" in a 1990 State
court ruling, and was repealed. Apparently only state law applies now.
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** Wisconsin [WI]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Wisconsin State Law, Section 944.20 [*05]
| Lewd and Lascivious Behavior. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of
| a Class A misdeamor:
|
| (1) Commits an indecent act of sexual gratification with another with
| knowledge that they are in the presence of others; or
|
| (2) Publicly and indecently exposes genitals or pubic area.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
************************** CANADA [EH?]: ********************************
************************************************** ****************************
From the Canadian Criminal Code, and commentaries from Snow's Annotated
Criminal Code [*11]:
----------
| section 173
| (1) Every one who willfully does an indecent act
| (a) in a public place in the presence of one or more persons,or
| (b) in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person,
| is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
|
| (2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her
| genital organs to a person who is under the age of fourteen years is guilty
| of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
----------
[1 Sunbathing] - Mere nude sunbathing is not of sufficent moral turpitude to
support a charge for doing an indecent act. (Beaupre(1971)) British Columbia
Supreme Court
[2 "streaking"] - "Streaking" does not have connotations of indecency, obcenity
or immorality so as to bring it within this section. (Springer(1975))
Saskatchewan District Court ,(Niman(1974)) Ontario Provincial Court
[3 public place] - An indecent act committed in a motor vehicle on a public
street and observed by a citizen on the street is done in a public place.
(Figluzzi(1981)) Alberta Court of Appeal
The doorway of an accused's house, exposed to public view, was a public place
when accused exposed himself therefrom. (Buhay(1986)) Manitoba Court of Appeal
[4 Willfully] - It is not necessary to name the person or persons who it is
alleged accused intended to insult or offend (Kosodoy(1957)) Ontario Court of
Appeal
"Willfully" means "deliberate" or "intentional" as opposed to "accidental" or
"inadvertant" and it is not further necessary to show that the accused knew and
intended to perform the indecent act in the sight of others. (Miceli(1977))
Ontario Provincial Court
----------
| section 174.
| (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
| (a) is nude in a public place, or
| (b) is nude and exposed to public veiw while on private property, whether
| or not the property is his own,
| is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
|
| (2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to
| offend against public decency or order.
|
| (3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent
| of the Atorney General
----------
[Public Decency] - in a case involving a nude male 'gogo boy' or dancer, it was
held that a completely nude accused can be convicted if found in a public place
and it is not an essential element that the nudity offend against public
decency or order. Subsection (2) enlarges subsection(1) by including those who
are dressed in a certain manner. (verrette (1978))
A trial judge can make a finding without hearing opinion evidence on the point,
that a dancer, partialy clothed, performes in a fashion which offends against
public decency or order. (Sidney (1980)), Ontario court of appeals
Accused dancer during her act was always partially clad and as an average adult
in the community would tolerate a performance in which she exhibited her body
in various stages of undress, she was not guilty of an offense under subs.(1).
(Gray(1982)) Ontario High Court
[2 Swimming] - This section was not aimed at nude swimming. (benolkin(1977))
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
[3 Concent of Attorney General] - The consent of the Attorney General to
allow proceedings is not subject to review by the courts. (warren(1981))
Ontario High Court
************************************************** ****************************
************************ Contributors: *******************************
************************************************** ****************************
[*01]: David Brahm ([email protected])
[*02]: Neil Midkiff ([email protected])
[*03]: Tom Middleton ([email protected])
[*04]: Rick 'n' Judy ([email protected])
[*05]: Robert Neinast ([email protected])
[*06]: Neil Faiman ([email protected])
[*07]: Mark Eckenwiler ([email protected])
[*08]: John Purbrick ([email protected])
[*09]: Jasen Jacobsen ([email protected])
[*10]: FarquharAB ([email protected])
[*11]: Kent Ashton ([email protected])
[*12]: Captain Curmudgeon ([email protected])
[*13]: Rick Casault ([email protected])
[*14]: Jeff Scridd ([email protected])
[*15]: Richard C Pasco ([email protected])
[*16]: Richard Kenner ([email protected])
[*17]: Kevin Hunter ([email protected])
[*18]: Tom Davis ([email protected])
[*19]: David Kushner ([email protected])
[*20]: Richard Mathews ([email protected])
.
The Legal FAQ, rev. 3/1/95
Please email contributions and suggestions. This FAQ is available on the WWW
(http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu:8001/~brahm/legal.html), and also appears in the
Naturist Home Page was [(http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~kr4ah/naturist/naturist.html)],
is now http://www.realtime.net:80/~kr4ah.
It contains hyperlinks to some court case texts.
To find your state, search for its 2-letter code in brackets, e.g. [CA]. We
currently have entries for CA, FL, LA, MN, NH, NY, OH, PA, RI, TX, UT, WA,
and WI. There is also a section on U.S. federal law and Canadian law.
Contributors are footnoted, e.g. [*01].
Disclaimers:
1) "Concurrent Jurisdiction" means one entity's laws (e.g. L.A. County) may be
enforced on another entity's land (e.g. Point Dume State Park).
2) Other laws (such as the catch-all "disorderly conduct") may also apply.
3) Judges are not always logical, literal-minded, or consistent.
4) I'm a physicist, Jim, not a lawyer.
-- David Brahm ([email protected])
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** United States [US]: *****************************
************************************************** ****************************
The U.S. Supreme Court, in
_Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc._, 111 S.Ct. 2456 (1991) [*09], "concluded
that the enforcement of Indiana's public indecency law to prevent totally nude
dancing does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of
expression." Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "This governmental interest is
unrelated to the suppression of free expression, since public nudity is the
evil the State seeks to prevent, whether or not it is combined with expressive
activity."
This 5-4 decision means nudity is not (protected) free speech in the U.S., and
has been used (e.g. by Clearwater, FL) to argue that states and communities may
regulate the conduct of appearing nude in public places, such as a beach.
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** California [CA]: *****************************
************************************************** ****************************
Summary: [*01]
State law is tolerant of non-sexual nudity, having established in 1972 that
"nude is not lewd", but there are many local anti-nudity ordinances. There is
a CA Adminstrative Code limiting nude use of State Parks (and beaches) to
"traditional locations". Under the Cahill Policy (1977), the State Parks and
Recreation Dept. will act upon a complaint by asking you to dress, after which
you may not disrobe again that day. If you comply, no citation is issued.
----------
| CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, Section 314 (Indecent exposure): [*02]
| 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.
----------
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT decision "In re Smith" (excerpts):
(In re Smith (1972) 7 C3d 362, 102 Cal Rptr 335, 497 P2d 807.)
"A person does not expose his private parts 'lewdly' within the meaning of
Penal Code, Section 314, condemning indecent exposure, unless his conduct is
sexually motivated. Accordingly, a conviction of that offense requires proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but
intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for
purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.
"Absent additional conduct intentionally directing attention to his genitals
for sexual purposes, a person who simply sunbathes in the nude on an isolated
beach does not 'lewdly' expose his private parts within the meaning of Penal
Code, Section 314, condemning indecent exposure."
Note that persons who are found guilty under Section 314 must register as sex
offenders, according to CA Penal Code Section 290. [*20]
----------
| CA Administrative Code, Div. 3, Title 14, Sec. 4322 ('Nudity') reads: [*03]
| No person shall appear nude while in any unit of the state park system except
| in authorized areas set aside for that purpose. The word nude as used herein
| means unclothed or in such a state of undress as to expose any part or
| portion of the pubic or anal region or genitalia or any portion of the breast
| at or below the areola thereof of any female.
----------
Although this clearly states nudity is not allowed the implementation of this
policy was dictated by then State Parks Superintendent Russell Cahill in 1977
and is still in effect today. Known as 'The Cahill Policy' it says: [*03]
"enforcement of nude sunbathing regulations within the State Park System shall
be made only upon the complaint of a private citizen. Citations or arrests
shall be made only after attempts are made to elicit voluntary compliance"
Which means it is legal to be nude as long as no one complains and then you
will be given a chance to cover up before being cited. Furthermore, in 1986
there was a case, John Bost vs California, in which a man was asked to cover
up because of a complaint on one day and complied. The next day the same man
was nude again in the same place and was given a citation by the same ranger.
He was found guilty in his initial court visit but the conviction was
overturned on appeal. The appellate court said (in part):
"Further activities of a person so warned are prohibited for the balance
of the day, but activities on later days are proscribed only if preceded
by a new public complaint and renewed warning."
Which means you can pick a spot (on State Park System land) and get naked
until someone complains, then cover-up or leave and return the next day and
do it all over again. This assumes the enforcement officers know about the
Cahill policy and court ruling. If they don't then you may get cited with
no warning and/or no complaint. You should be able to fight it and win but
I am NOT A LAWYER so what I say don't mean **** in court.
========= Los Angeles County =========
----------
| Los Angeles County - Ordinance 17.12.360, "Nudity and Disrobing": [*01]
| A) No person shall appear, bathe, sunbathe, walk, change clothes, disrobe or
| be on any beach in such manner that the genitals, vulva, pubis, pubic
| symphysis, pubic hair, buttocks, natal cleft, perineum, anus, anal region
| or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the breast at or
| below the upper edge of the areola thereof of any female person, is
| exposed to public view, except in those portions of a comfort station, if
| any, expressly set aside for such purpose.
| B) This section shall not apply to persons under the age of 10 years,
| provided such children are sufficiently clothed to conform to accepted
| community standards.
| C) This section shall not apply to persons engaged in a live theatrical
| performance in a theater, concert hall, or similar establishment which is
| primarily devoted to theatrical performances.
----------
========= Berkeley =========
Reacting to Andrew Martinez ("the Naked Guy"), a Berkeley student who went nude
on and around campus in 1992 (and was later expelled), the Berkeley City
Council passed an ordinance prohibiting public nudity. [*01]
========= San Diego =========
In 1974 Black's Beach was officially designated clothing-optional, but this
designation was later rescinded. [*01]
----------
| San Diego, California, Municipal Code 56.53: Nudity on Public Lands: [*10]
|
| a. PURPOSE AND INTENT. The presence of persons who are nude and exposed to
| public view in or on public rights of way, public parks, public beaches or
| any other public land or in or on any private property open to public view
| from any public right of way, public beach, public park, or other public
| land, is offensive to members of the general public unwillingly exposed to
| such persons. The provisions of this section are enacted for the purpose of
| securing and promoting the public health, morals and general welfare of all
| persons in the City of San Diego.
|
| b. DEFINITIONS. Whenever in this section the word "nude" is used, it shall
| mean devoid of an opaque covering which covers the genitals, pubic hair,
| buttocks, perineum, anus, or anal region of any person, or any portion of the
| breast at or below the areola thereof of any female person. "Whenever in
| this section the term "public right of way" is used, it shall mean any place
| of any nature which is dedicated to use by the public for pedestrian and
| vehicular travel, and includes, but is not limited to, a street, sidewalk,
| curb, gutter, crossing, intersection, parkway, highway, alley, lane, mall,
| court, way, avenue, boulevard, road, roadway, viaduct, subway, tunnel,
| bridge, thoroughfare, square, and any other similar public way.
|
| c. NUDITY PROHIBITED. No person over the age of ten years shall be nude and
| exposed to public view in or on any public right of way, public park, public
| beach or waters adjacent thereto, or other public land, or in or on any
| private property open to public view from any public right of way, public
| beach, public park, or other public land.
|
| d. The provisions of this section shall not apply to live theatrical
| performances performed in a theater, concert hall, or other similar
| establishment located on public land. As used in this section, theater,
| concert hall or similar establishment means a building, playhouse, room, hall
| or other enclosed place not open to public view from any public right of way
| but having a stage upon which movable scenery is located and theatrical,
| vaudeville or similar performances are given and seats so arranged that a
| body of spectators can have an unobstructed view of the stage and whose
| primary function is to give such performances.
----------
========= San Jose =========
----------
| San Jose Municipal Code 0.12.030: [*15]
|
| A. No person over the age of ten years shall be nude and exposed to public
| view in or upon any public right-of-way public park, public lands, or in or
| upon any private property open to the public view from any such park,
| right-of-way or public property.
|
| B. as used in this section, "nude" means devoid of any opaque covering of
| the genitals,pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus or anal region of any
| person; or any portion of the breast, at or below the areola thereof, of any
| female person.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
************************ Florida [FL]: *******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| 800.03 Exposure of sexual organs. [*09]
|
| It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the
| private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such
| private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public
| except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of
| this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in
| s.775.082 or 775.083. A mother's breast feeding of her baby does not under
| any circumstance violate this section.
----------
In Hoffman v. Carson (1971) the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the "vulgar or
indecent" clause in Florida Statute 800.03 does not apply to mere nudity
without lewd and lascivious intent [*14]. According to [*16], this decision
means mere nudity is not illegal under FL law. Attempts have subsequently
been made in the FL legislature to broaden 800.03.
========= Clearwater =========
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: [*09]
_Section 1_. A new Section 21.13, Code of Ordinances, is created to read:
----------
| Sec. 21.13. Public Nudity.
|
| (1) As used in this section:
| (a) "Adult use establishment" means an establishment as defined in
| sec. 41.505 of the city code.
| (b) "Entity" means any proprietorship, partnership, corporation,
| association, business trust, joint venture, joint- stock company or other
| for profit or not for profit organization.
| (c) "Nude" means the showing of:
| 1. Human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a
| fully opaque covering; or
| 2. Any portion of the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or
| female buttocks. Attire that is insufficient to comply with this
| requirement includes, but is not limited to, G-strings, T-backs, thongs and
| any other clothing or covering that does not completely and opaquely cover
| the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female buttocks; or
| 3. The portion of the human female breast directly or laterally
| below a point immediately above the top of the areola with less than a
| fully opaque covering; this definition shall include the entire lower
| portion of the human female breast, but shall not include any portion of
| the cleavage of the human female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse,
| shirt, leotard, bathing suit, or other clothing, provided the areola is not
| exposed; or
| 4. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if
| completely and opaquely covered.
| (d) "Person" means any live human being ten years of age or older.
| (e) "Place provided and set apart for nudity" means enclosed
| single-sex public restrooms; enclosed single-sex functional shower, locker
| or dressing room facilities; enclosed motel rooms and hotel rooms designed
| and intended for sleeping accommodations; areas within doctor's offices,
| medical clinics, hospitals, and other licensed medical health care
| facilities designed and intended for the examination of patients; and
| similar places in which nudity is necessarily and customarily expected
| outside of the home and the sphere of privacy constitutionally protected
| therein. This term shall not be deemed to include places where a person's
| conduct of being nude is used for his or her profit or where being nude is
| used for the promotion of business or is otherwise commercially exploited.
| (f) "Public place" means any location frequented by the public, or
| where the public is present or likely to be present, or where a person may
| reasonably be expected to be observed by members of the public. The term
| includes but is not limited to streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches, business
| and commercial establishments (whether for profit or not for profit,
| whether open to the public at large, or whether entrance is limited by a
| cover charge or membership requirement), hotels, motels, restaurants, night
| clubs, cabarets, and meeting facilities utilized by any religious, social,
| fraternal or similar organization. Premises, or portions thereof such as
| hotel rooms, used solely as a private residence, whether permanent or
| temporary in nature, shall not be deemed to be a public place.
|
| (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or
| intentionally appear, or cause another person to appear, nude in a public
| place or in any other place that is readily visible to the public, except
| as provided in subsection (3) of this section. It shall also be unlawful
| for any person or entity maintaining, owning, or operating any public place
| to operate and to knowingly or with reason to know, permit or allow any
| person to appear nude in such a public place, except as provided in
| subsection (3) of this section.
|
| (3) The following shall be exempt from the prohibitions of
| subsection (2) of this section:
| (a) When a person appears nude in a place provided or set apart for
| nudity, provided such person is nude for the sole purpose of performing the
| legal function that is customarily intended to be performed within such
| place and such person is not nude for the purpose of obtaining money or
| other financial gain for such person or for another person or entity;
| (b) When a mother is breast-feeding her baby in compliance with
| Section 383.015, Florida Statutes; or
| (c) When the conduct of being nude cannot legally be prohibited by
| this ordinance because it constitutes a part of a bona fide live
| communication, demonstration or performance by a person wherein such nudity
| is expressive conduct protected by the United States Constitution or the
| Florida Constitution. Nude dancers performing in adult use establishments
| shall not be exempt from the prohibitions of subsection (2) of this
| section.
| (d) When a person appears nude for legitimate instructional purposes
| for authorized courses at community colleges, state universities, or other
| public or private institutions of higher learning.
|
| (4) This section shall not be deemed to address photographs, movies,
| video presentations, or any other non-live performance.
|
| _Section 2_. This ordinance shall take effect 60 days from adoption.
| PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
| READING AND ADOPTED AS AMENDED February 17, 1994
----------
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** Louisiana [LA]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
From West's Louisiana handbook: [*04]
----------
| 106. Obscenity
| A. The crime of obscenity is the intentional:
| (1) Exposure of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast
| nipples in any public place or place open to the public view with the intent
| of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest or is
| patently offensive.
----------
It then goes on for a page and a half to list various porn stuff lacking
literary, artistic, etc. value and then lists exemptions such as schools,
churches, museums, etc. It also states that cities and parishes (counties) can
pass laws, but cannot EXCEED the scope.
...The owner [of a camp] was arrested for "indecent exposure" with the classic
"tell it to the judge". His attorney did tell it to the judge, who, like most
folks believed there really was such a thing as "indecent exposure" in our
state. After reading 106 the judge dismissed the whole thing and instructed the
sheriff's dept. to "leave these people alone".
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** Minnesota [MN]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| 6100.1600 SWIMMING IN STATE PARKS. [*10]
| Activities in and upon the beaches and swimming areas shall be under the
| direction of the lifeguard, if one is present.
| It is unlawful to swim in or enter any body of water or area where
| prohibited.
| It is unlawful in any area where swimming is not prohibited, including
| designated beaches, to:
| A. allow any dog or other pet to enter the water with swimmers;
| B. while in the water, use air mattresses, inner tubes, and other flotation
| devices not approved by the Coast Guard, except when an area is
| specifically designated for that use;
| C. enter the water before sunrise or after sunset;
| D. engage in any activity which is hazardous and could cause injury to
| others; or
| E. use any soap, detergent, or shampoo.
| In addition to items A to E, it is unlawful on designated beaches to possess
| glass containers; enter with any boat, canoe, or raft; fish; or change
| clothes except in a facility designated for that use, where a facility is
| provided.
----------
========= Minneapolis, Minnesota, Park and Recreation Board =========
----------
| PB2-21 (1982) Proper Attire Required. No person 10 years of age or older
| shall intentionally expose his or her own genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or
| female breast below the top of the areola, with less than a fully opaque
| covering in or upon any park or parkway, as defined in PB1-1. This provision
| does not apply to theatrical, musical, or other artistic performances upon
| any park or parkway where no alcoholic beverages are sold.
----------
Lee Ann Turner was arrested on September 8, 1983, for sunbathing topless at
Wirth Lake in Minneapolis. Turner was found guilty and appealed on First
Amendment grounds of free expression. The appeals court noted that the
Minnesota Supreme Court held that "nudity is not protected expression, but
conduct, which the city has a substantial interest in regulating via its police
power... PB2-21 does not unconstitutionally infringe on Turner's right to free
speech granted by the United States or Minnesota constitutions." [*10]
Turner also claimed that "the ordinance creates an unconstitutional
gender-based classification," this violating the equal protection clauses of
the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions. The appeals court concluded: "PB2-21
advances a legislate governmental interest in the preservation of public
decency and order... The female breasts, unlike male breasts, constitute an
erogenous zone and are commonly associated with sexual arousal. Common
knowledge tells us that there is a real difference between the sexes with
respect to breasts, which is reasonably related to the preservation of public
decorum and morals... There being such a difference between the breasts of
males and females (however undiscernible to the naked eye of some), and that
difference having a reasonable relationship to the legitimate legislative
purpose which it serves, the ordinance does not deny equality of rights or
impose unequal responsibilities on women. Protection of society's norms is a
legitimate legislative goal. The slight difference in clothing requirements
imposed on the two sexes is necessary if the legislative purpose is to be
served... In certain narrow circumstances, a gender classification based on
clear differences between the sexes is not invidious, and a legislative
classification realistically based upon those differences is not
unconstitutional. When men and women are not in fact similarly situated in the
area covered by the legislation in question, the Equal Protection Clause does
not mean that the physiological differences between men and women must be
disregarded. While those differences must never be permitted to become a
pretext for invidious discrimination, no such discrimination is presented by
this case. The Constitution surely does not require a State to pretend that
demonstrable differences between men and women do not really exist."
------------------------------------------
Resolution adopted by the City of Minneapolis
Democrat-Farm-Labor (DFL) party, June 12, 1993
------------------------------------------
"The policy of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board shall be to validate
the clothing optional nature of Hidden Beach on Cedar Lake by having it posted
to notify visitors that they may encounter nude sunbathers, by instituting a
patrol of the beach to ensure the safety of all park users, and by repealing
the ordinance that prohibits nudity, PB2-21, if necessary, and
"that this is an experiment for one year, that after the one year open public
hearings shall be held to discover the public will as regards the future of
clothing optionality at Hidden Beach and/or its expansion to other possible
sites within the city parks."
========= suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota =========
----------
| PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH, MORALS, AND WELFARE [*10]
|
| 164. Various Offenses.
|
| 164.040. Indecent or Immoral Conduct.
| No person shall appear in any street or public place in the City in a state
| of nudity, or in a dress not belonging to his or her sex, or in any indecent
| or lewd dress, or be guilty of any obscene or filthy act, or of any lewd,
| indecent, immoral, or insulting conduct, language or behavior, or shall
| exhibit, sell, or offer to sell any indecent or lewd book, picture or other
| thing, or shall exhibit or perform any lewd play, or other representation.
|
| 164.120. Indecent Exposure.
| No person shall willfully, within the city, lewdly expose his/her person or
| the private parts thereof in any place where others are present, or in any
| public place, or shall procure another so to expose himself/herself.
|
| PETTY OFFENSES
|
| 1201. DISORDERLY CONDUCT
|
| 1201.020 INDECENT EXPOSURE.
| Any person or persons who shall appear in any street or public place in said
| City in a state of nudity, or in a dress not belonging to his or her sex, or
| in any indecent or lewd dress, or shall make any indecent exposure of his or
| her person, or be guilty of any obscene or filthy act, or of any law,
| indecent, immoral or insulting conduct, language or behavior, or shall
| exhibit, sell or offer to sell, any indecent or lewd book, picture or other
| thing or shall exhibit or perform any indecent, immoral or lewd play or other
| representation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
********************* New Hampshire [NH]: ****************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| State of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 645:1 [*06]
| INDECENT EXPOSURE AND LEWDNESS. A person is guilty of a misdemeanour if he
| fornicates, exposes his genitals or performs any other act of gross lewdness
| under circumstances which he should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
************************ New York [NY]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
The Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York State) in People v.
Santorelli, July 7, 1992, construed NY Penal Law sec. 245.01 (which bars public
display of the female breast "below the top of the areola") as applying only
under narrow circumstances, such as where the woman's conduct is "lewd" or
performed in a commercial setting (topless bar, for example). [*07]
An excerpt from the full text:
The People have made no attempt below and make none before us to demonstrate
that the statute's discriminatory effect serves an important governmental
interest or that the classification is based on a reasoned predicate.
More recently, NY passed a law imposing severe penalties on any establishment
which attempted to prevent a woman from breast-feeding [text, anyone?]. [*01]
************************************************** ****************************
************************* Ohio [OH]: *********************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Section 2907.09 -- Public Indecency [*05]
| (A) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under
| circumstances in which his or her conduct is likely to
| be viewed by and affront others, not members of his or
| her household:
| (1) Expose his or her private parts, or engage in masturbation;
| (2) Engage in sexual conduct;
| (3) Engage in conduct which to an ordinary observer would appear
| to be sexual conduct or masturbation.
| (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of public indecency,
| a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
|
| Section 2901.22
| (C) A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to
| the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that
| his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely
| to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect
| to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the
| consequences, he perversely disregards a know risk that such
| circumstances are likely to exist.
----------
Under this, only the exposure of the genitals is illegal (in fact, there is a
court case (in Cincinnati, the bluenose capitol of Ohio) in which they tried a
woman for supposedly exposing her nipples.
The ruling was that, even if she had exposed her nipples, it didn't matter,
since nipples are not private parts (State v Parenteau, Ohio Misc 2d 10, 11).
Thus, while nude is not legal in Ohio, thongs and topless are. (Also note that
cities have the power to make more restrictive laws.)
========= Akron [*09] =========
The city of Akron wrote a stronger public indecency ordinance, outlawing all
public nudity, which was struck down as overly broad. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (6th Circuit), in Triplett Grille,
Inc. v. City of Akron, ruled that:
"Because the City has failed to demonstrate a link between
nudity in non-adult entertainment and secondary effects, we do
agree with the district court that the Akron ordinance must be
struck down as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment
overbreadth doctrine."
************************************************** ****************************
********************** Pennsylvania [PA]: ****************************
************************************************** ****************************
(From the Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia...) [*01]
----------
| Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes sec. 3127, "Indecent Exposure":
| A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, for the purpose of
| arousing or gratifying sexual desire fo himself or of any person other than
| his spouse, he exposes his genitals under circumstances in which he knows his
| conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.
----------
----------
| Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes sec. 5901, "Open Lewdness":
| A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does any lewd act
| which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or
| alarmed.
----------
Examples given include nude motorist who asks for directions.
The courts downplay the need to prove intent:
Gravamen of indecent exposure is exposure of genitals under circumstances
where actor knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm - Com. v.
Whetstine, 1985, 496 A.2d 777, 344 Pa.Super. 246, app.den.
Neither indecent exposure act nor open lewdness act require proof of intent
to affront or alarm general public - Com. v. Back, 1978, 389 A.2d 141, 255
Pa.Super. 603.
But indecent exposure must be "public":
To sustain charge of open lewdness, lewdness must be "open", "notorious" or
"public" and the legislative mandate was not satisfied with evidence of
lewdness committed during hours of darkness, in a private dwelling, subject
to observation only by persons not obligated so to do, looking through
windows of their own dwelling into the dwelling of the alleged offender via
the latter's windows. - Com. v. Helms, 38 D. and C.2d 496, 79 York 177, 1966.
************************************************** ****************************
********************** Rhode Island [RI]: ****************************
************************************************** ****************************
The Boston Globe of 5/20/94 ("Ruling Pleases Nudist Club in R.I.") reported
[*08] that "Members of a nudist club plan to go ahead and open a clothes-
optional beach here [in South Kingstown, RI] after a judge's ruling that no
special zoning exemption was required."
"The ruling, by Superior Court Judge Melanie Famiglietti, overturned a decision
by the town's zoning board that the group must obtain an exemption to operate
the half-acre beach it bought last year."
However, this ruling was overturned [*19] by the Rhode Island Supreme Court on
9/30/94 in New England Naturist ***'n v. George, 648 A.2d 370 (R.I. 1994).
Interestingly, although NENA has to comply with the zoning ordinance, nothing
is said about the (il)legality of nude sunbathing per se.
************************************************** ****************************
************************** Texas [TX]: *******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Texas 1993-1994 penal code [*17],[*18]
| TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
|
| Section 21.08: Indecent Exposure
| (a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his
| genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
| person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be
| offended or alarmed by his act.
| (b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor
|
| Section 42.01: Disorderly Conduct
| (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
| (12) Exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless
| about whether another may be present who will be offended or
| alarmed by his act.
| (c) For purposes of this section, an act is deemed to occur in a public
| place ... if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in
| the public place....
| (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor....
|
| Penalties:
| Class B misdemeanor -- fine of up to $2,000; jail for up to 180 days.
| Class C misdemeanor -- fine of up to $500; no jail.
----------
The rule of thumb along Texas beaches is to carry a sign to warn other people
when they are approaching your nude use area (thus avoiding "recklessness").
************************************************** ****************************
************************** Utah [UT]: ********************************
************************************************** ****************************
State statue says: [*12]
----------
| a person is guilty of lewdness if he "exposes his genitals or private parts
| ... under circumstances which he should know will likely cause affront or
| alarm or does any such act in a public place."
----------
************************************************** ****************************
********************** Washington [WA]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Washington state code RCW 9A.88.010, Indecent Exposure: [*13]
|
| (1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he (sic) intentionally makes
| any open and obscene exposure of his (sic) person or the person of another
| knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
|
| (2) Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor unless such person exposes himself
| (sic) to a person under the age of fourteen years in which case indecent
| exposure is a gross misdemeanor on the first offense and, if such person has
| previously been convicted under this subsection or of a sex offense as
| defined in RCW 9.94A.030, then such person is guilty of a class C felony
| punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
----------
========= Seattle [*13] =========
Seattle Municipal Code SMC 12A.10.070 was found "overly broad" in a 1990 State
court ruling, and was repealed. Apparently only state law applies now.
************************************************** ****************************
*********************** Wisconsin [WI]: ******************************
************************************************** ****************************
----------
| Wisconsin State Law, Section 944.20 [*05]
| Lewd and Lascivious Behavior. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of
| a Class A misdeamor:
|
| (1) Commits an indecent act of sexual gratification with another with
| knowledge that they are in the presence of others; or
|
| (2) Publicly and indecently exposes genitals or pubic area.
----------
************************************************** ****************************
************************** CANADA [EH?]: ********************************
************************************************** ****************************
From the Canadian Criminal Code, and commentaries from Snow's Annotated
Criminal Code [*11]:
----------
| section 173
| (1) Every one who willfully does an indecent act
| (a) in a public place in the presence of one or more persons,or
| (b) in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person,
| is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
|
| (2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her
| genital organs to a person who is under the age of fourteen years is guilty
| of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
----------
[1 Sunbathing] - Mere nude sunbathing is not of sufficent moral turpitude to
support a charge for doing an indecent act. (Beaupre(1971)) British Columbia
Supreme Court
[2 "streaking"] - "Streaking" does not have connotations of indecency, obcenity
or immorality so as to bring it within this section. (Springer(1975))
Saskatchewan District Court ,(Niman(1974)) Ontario Provincial Court
[3 public place] - An indecent act committed in a motor vehicle on a public
street and observed by a citizen on the street is done in a public place.
(Figluzzi(1981)) Alberta Court of Appeal
The doorway of an accused's house, exposed to public view, was a public place
when accused exposed himself therefrom. (Buhay(1986)) Manitoba Court of Appeal
[4 Willfully] - It is not necessary to name the person or persons who it is
alleged accused intended to insult or offend (Kosodoy(1957)) Ontario Court of
Appeal
"Willfully" means "deliberate" or "intentional" as opposed to "accidental" or
"inadvertant" and it is not further necessary to show that the accused knew and
intended to perform the indecent act in the sight of others. (Miceli(1977))
Ontario Provincial Court
----------
| section 174.
| (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
| (a) is nude in a public place, or
| (b) is nude and exposed to public veiw while on private property, whether
| or not the property is his own,
| is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
|
| (2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to
| offend against public decency or order.
|
| (3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent
| of the Atorney General
----------
[Public Decency] - in a case involving a nude male 'gogo boy' or dancer, it was
held that a completely nude accused can be convicted if found in a public place
and it is not an essential element that the nudity offend against public
decency or order. Subsection (2) enlarges subsection(1) by including those who
are dressed in a certain manner. (verrette (1978))
A trial judge can make a finding without hearing opinion evidence on the point,
that a dancer, partialy clothed, performes in a fashion which offends against
public decency or order. (Sidney (1980)), Ontario court of appeals
Accused dancer during her act was always partially clad and as an average adult
in the community would tolerate a performance in which she exhibited her body
in various stages of undress, she was not guilty of an offense under subs.(1).
(Gray(1982)) Ontario High Court
[2 Swimming] - This section was not aimed at nude swimming. (benolkin(1977))
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
[3 Concent of Attorney General] - The consent of the Attorney General to
allow proceedings is not subject to review by the courts. (warren(1981))
Ontario High Court
************************************************** ****************************
************************ Contributors: *******************************
************************************************** ****************************
[*01]: David Brahm ([email protected])
[*02]: Neil Midkiff ([email protected])
[*03]: Tom Middleton ([email protected])
[*04]: Rick 'n' Judy ([email protected])
[*05]: Robert Neinast ([email protected])
[*06]: Neil Faiman ([email protected])
[*07]: Mark Eckenwiler ([email protected])
[*08]: John Purbrick ([email protected])
[*09]: Jasen Jacobsen ([email protected])
[*10]: FarquharAB ([email protected])
[*11]: Kent Ashton ([email protected])
[*12]: Captain Curmudgeon ([email protected])
[*13]: Rick Casault ([email protected])
[*14]: Jeff Scridd ([email protected])
[*15]: Richard C Pasco ([email protected])
[*16]: Richard Kenner ([email protected])
[*17]: Kevin Hunter ([email protected])
[*18]: Tom Davis ([email protected])
[*19]: David Kushner ([email protected])
[*20]: Richard Mathews ([email protected])
.
Comment