Don't go naked in your own home--you might get arrested.

[MadImmortalMan]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464

Coffee-making naked guy rebuffed by exposure charge
October 21, 2009 - 10:53am

SPRINGFIELD, Va. - Eric Williamson faces an indecent exposure charge after a passerby saw him in the buff in his own home making coffee.

It happened at 5:30 a.m. Monday.

Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.

Williamson, 29, says he didn't know anyone could see him.

"If I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen, it's natural. It's my kitchen," Williamson tells Channel 5.

Williamson says his roommates were not home when he came into the kitchen and made his coffee.

Fairfax County Police say they believed Williamson wanted to be seen naked by the public.

Williamson, a father of a 5-year old girl, said he plans to fight the charge.

"There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever, ever do anything like that to a kid," he says.

A trial lawyer, who is not connected to the Williamson's case, says the state will have to prove that Williamson knew people were there for them to get a conviction on the charge that carries a one-year jail term and a $2,000 fine.

Righto. Charge the bitch for trespassing and voyeurism. Why was she creeping around on other peoples' property with her kid at five thirty in the morning anyway? I don't see why it matters if he knew people were there or not. 

What a dumb situation.

[Malthus]

This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?

[Barrister]

This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?

Never, ever assume that all the facts about a crime story are accurately reported.  Indeed, I would suggest you assume the opposite.

[Valmy]

Next thing you know that pedophile pervert will be exposing himself to kids who sneak into his bathroom while he is showering 

[Malthus]

This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?

Never, ever assume that all the facts about a crime story are accurately reported.  Indeed, I would suggest you assume the opposite.

Fair enough; but it is hard to see the other side to this one, unless something totally different from what is alleged too place.

[Capetan Mihali]

Well, I could imagine a scenario where the man is making coffee, nude, but obscured by the Mr. Coffee and whatever else is on the counter, and then, upon seeing the mother-child combo trespassing on his property, decides to apply the Castle Doctrine by springing out and making his private parts public in front of the window, perhaps accompanied by a lewd sneer or tongue gesture.

That could meet the facts of this case and still plausibly be an indecent exposure charge, n'est-ce pas?

[Barrister]

By the way, a charge of indecent act inside your own home actually went to the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago:

Attorney General of Ontario                                                                          Intervener



Indexed as:  R. v. Clark



Neutral citation:  2005 SCC 2.



File No.:  29976.



2004:  November 2; 2005:  January 27.



Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.



on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia





Criminal law — Disorderly conduct — Indecent acts — Public place — Criminal Code prohibits wilfully doing indecent act in public place — Whether masturbating in illuminated room before uncovered window while unknowingly being observed by neighbours is indecent act in public place — Whether living room "public place" within meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of Criminal Code — Meaning of word "access" in definition of "public place" in s. 150 of Criminal Code.



The accused was observed masturbating near the uncovered window of his illuminated living room by neighbours from the privacy of their darkened bedroom, across contiguous back yards, from a distance of 90 to 150 feet.  The police were summoned.  They observed the accused from "just below the navel up" from the neighbour's bedroom and  "from about maybe the neck or the shoulders up" from street level.  The accused was charged under ss. 173(1)(a) and 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.  Section 173(1) makes it an offence to wilfully do 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".  The trial judge convicted the accused under s. 173(1)(a) after finding he had converted his living room into a "public place" but acquitted him under s. 173(1)(b) after finding that it did not appear the accused knew he was being watched or intended to insult or offend any person.  The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of British Columbia upheld the conviction.  The Court of Appeal concluded that the accused had "intentionally conducted himself in an indecent way, seeking to draw the attention of others".



Held:  The appeal should be allowed.  The accused's conviction is vacated and an acquittal entered.





The facts as found by the trial judge do not support the accused's conviction.  The accused's act was not committed in a "public place" within the meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  A "public place" is defined in s. 150 as "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied".  "Access" means "the right or opportunity to reach or use or visit"  and not the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within.  Interpreting "public place" as contemplating physical as opposed to visual access renders the whole of s. 173(1) more coherent and is consistent with Parliament's legislative distinction in the Criminal Code between conduct that is criminal because it occurs "in a public place" and conduct that is criminal because it is "exposed to public view" or "open to public view". [11-14] [42-51]



The Court of Appeal erred by departing from the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence in the absence of a finding that he had committed a palpable and overriding error.  It also erred in finding that the conviction was supported by case law that expands the meaning of a "public place" to include the place where the witnesses to an indecent act are physically situated.  Even if correctly decided, this case law does not support the conviction since the accused's act did not occur in a public place within the expanded meaning. [9-10] [24-32]



Although the definition of "endroit public" in the French version of s. 150 contains no equivalent of the word "includes" found in the definition of "public place" in the English version, there is no need to choose between versions because both contemplate physical as opposed to visual access. [39-41]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc2/2005scc2.html

[MadImmortalMan]

So Beeb---does that mean that if visual access to the interior of the home is allowed (ie-there is line-of-sight from the position of the viewer), then the interior of the home becomes a public place for the purposes of this kind of infraction?

It sure seems like a stretch to me. A big stretch.

[Barrister]

So Beeb---does that mean that if visual access to the interior of the home is allowed (ie-there is line-of-sight from the position of the viewer), then the interior of the home becomes a public place for the purposes of this kind of infraction?

It sure seems like a stretch to me. A big stretch.

Uh, no.  Not at all.  The SCC said the opposite in fact.  From the headnote that I posted:

The facts as found by the trial judge do not support the accused's conviction.  The accused's act was not committed in a "public place" within the meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  A "public place" is defined in s. 150 as "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied".  "Access" means "the right or opportunity to reach or use or visit"  and not the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within.  Interpreting "public place" as contemplating physical as opposed to visual access renders the whole of s. 173(1) more coherent and is consistent with Parliament's legislative distinction in the Criminal Code between conduct that is criminal because it occurs "in a public place" and conduct that is criminal because it is "exposed to public view" or "open to public view". [11-14] [42-51]

[MadImmortalMan]

Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.

[Barrister]

Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.

Not necessarily.  He would be not guilty under s. 173(1)(a) (the public place provision).  He could potentially be guilty under s. 173(1)(b), which reads "in any place, with intent to insult or offend any person".

[Neil]

Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.

Not guilty.  Remember, to a prosecutor, nobody is innocent. 

[Barrister]

Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.

Not guilty.  Remember, to a prosecutor, nobody is innocent. 

I have taught you well.

[saskganesh]

if we assume the opposite, it's 5:30 in the afternoon and he is making coffee fully clothed in her front yard.

look, that's an absurd axiom. if you have a communication issue with reporters, that's a public relations issue which as a public employee, you have a responsibility to address.

[Neil]

if we assume the opposite, it's 5:30 in the afternoon and he is making coffee fully clothed in her front yard.

Or rather not making coffee.

look, that's an absurd axiom. if you have a communication issue with reporters, that's a public relations issue which as a public employee, you have a responsibility to address.

But isn't it true that reporters always get things wrong, and that they are largely either liars or imbeciles?