what is indecent exposure? exposing "the body"?

[Beowulf999]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota

Could use some help deciphering the law which seems very odd and sketchy on this issue-- i.e. indecent exposure. Basically I want to do some photography of swimsuit models in Duluth, MN on some beaches. I find the law on this very very odd.

My local city ordinance is this: "Sec. 34-9. Indecent exposure. For state law as to indecent exposure, see M.S.A., § 617.23. No person shall make any indecent display or exposure of his body in a place where he should expect such display to be seen by and annoy, anger or frighten another. (8-31-1891, § 1; Ord. No. 8451, 4-16-1979, § 7.)"

But this is where it gets weird-- the MN Statute on this: "617.23 INDECENT EXPOSURE; PENALTIES. Subdivision 1.Misdemeanor. A person who commits any of the following acts in any public place, or in any place where others are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1) willfully and lewdly exposes the person's body, or the private parts thereof; (2) procures another to expose private parts; or (3) engages in any open or gross lewdness or lascivious behavior, or any public indecency other than behavior specified in this subdivision."

So it appears that it is a misdemeanor just to expose one's body on a beach? What exactly is "one's body"? If it means skin, well then there are thousands of people breaking the law every day, including many women in the workforce wearing low cut tops and short skirts. I mean, come on, why is the law so vague on this issue? What is one's body? What is "lewd"? How am I supposed to know when a swimsuit on a photography model is too skimpy so as to be guilty of a crime compared to all the other hundreds of college gals wearing bikini's on the local beaches of Duluth MN? If I photograph the model during early hours and very very far out on a beach where normally people are not found, would I be dodging the statue by so doing?

 

[BOR]

It also says LEWDLY.

 

[Beowulf999]

It also says LEWDLY.

Okay you are correct on that, thank you for catching that. So what is the legal definition of "lewd" as it applies to exposing the body?

 

[DAD10]

lewd and lascivious
adj., adv. references to conduct which includes people living together who are known not to be married, entertainment which aims at arousing the libido or primarily sexual sensation, open solicitation for prostitution or indecent exposure of genitalia (which is itself a crime). Due to the tendency of judges to be overly careful in writing about moral and/or sexual matters the definitions have been cloaked in old-fashioned modesty. Today the term usually applies to pornography, prostitution and indecent acts.

 

[Beowulf999]

lewd and lascivious
adj., adv. references to conduct which includes people living together who are known not to be married, entertainment which aims at arousing the libido or primarily sexual sensation, open solicitation for prostitution or indecent exposure of genitalia (which is itself a crime). Due to the tendency of judges to be overly careful in writing about moral and/or sexual matters the definitions have been cloaked in old-fashioned modesty. Today the term usually applies to pornography, prostitution and indecent acts.

So I think a couple of years ago some women on the local beaches were ticketed or arrested, not sure which, for wearing thong bikinis. How is that "lewd"? There was no genitalia exposed. It was not meant to be "entertainment" (and if it was, then all bikini swimwear, or for that matter ANY swimwear might be considered lewd. This really seems like an odd law, one left vague so that local governments can impose their morality on this issue; and that bothers me of course as a photographer but more importantly as a citizen. Nude sunbathing is one thing, but how skimpy a swimsuit is is something entirely different since no pubic hair or genitalia is exposed.

 

[BOR]

I could not find a statutory definition.

You need to pay a visit to a library where they have the MN laws, maybe the Main branch. After the section posted here, there will be case law annotations. These are a synopsis/syllabus of the case. There may be a common law defintion in one. To read the WHOLE cases though, it may take a visit to a law library.

BUT, as Dad points out, when a word is not defined in statutory or common law, "statutory construction" laws apply the everday/ordinary meaning of a word.

 

[BOR]

So I think a couple of years ago some women on the local beaches were ticketed or arrested, not sure which, for wearing thong bikinis. How is that "lewd"? There was no genitalia exposed.

A thong is meant to display the entire rear, having a centerpiece going down the seperation is not attire.

 

[Beowulf999]

I could not find a statutory definition.

You need to pay a visit to a library where they have the MN laws, maybe the Main branch. After the section posted here, there will be case law annotations. These are a synopsis/syllabus of the case. There may be a common law defintion in one. To read the WHOLE cases though, it may take a visit to a law library.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=617.23

BUT, as Dad points out, when a word is not defined in statutory or common law, "statutory construction" laws apply the everday/ordinary meaning of a word.

Hmm. Not familiar with that, I will have to research what statuatory construction laws are. I find this issue interesting.

 

[BOR]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=617.23/QUOTE]

I already looke there, there was NO specific definition.

Hmm. Not familiar with that, I will have to research what statuatory construction laws are. I find this issue interesting.

When a word is not defined specifically either in statutory or common law, see below:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=645.08

You may find words are defined different, even the same word, in different states.

One example might be "Knowingly" as a Culpable Mental state to commit a crime. One state may have a different definition than another state, etc.

 

[Beowulf999]

What a messed up society we live in, imho. As a citizen one is barraged by laws for which the average citizen does not even know what the law in fact is on the issue, unbelievable.

 

[BOR]

What a messed up society we live in, imho. As a citizen one is barraged by laws for which the average citizen does not even know what the law in fact is on the issue, unbelievable.

The USSC has ruled that a person can not be convicted of a crime that is so vague, they have no idea there is a law against it.

Here though, LEWD, is not beyond the scope of a person to reasonably know what it means, even though it is not the actual statutory/common law definition.

 

[justalayman]

What a messed up society we live in, imho. As a citizen one is barraged by laws for which the average citizen does not even know what the law in fact is on the issue, unbelievable.

hey, lawyers need to eat too!!

just kidding. Most people feel very similarly to how you feel.

your thong thing: If I remember correctly, that was in Florida and the statute was written utilizing terms and definitions that required a certain percentage of the rump or some specific well defined area to be covered. Daytona Beach, I believe Coco Beach (as well as all of Brevard County), and probably many other areas have effectively outlawed thongs.

Since the U.S. is relatively prudish compared to much of the rest of the world, this really shouldn't surprise you.

and there is no requirement to show pubic hair or genitals for something to be considered lewd.

go here to check out a definition of lewd:

lewd - definition of lewd by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Just as the term "obscene" is not an easily defined term, what would constitute what is lewd is similarly difficult. They are both often defined by the community that is making the laws (community standards). This way, the laws tend to reflect the understanding of the terms as the general population in that area define the term. As you are aware, wearing a thong is considered lewd or obscene in Braverd County Florida. In other areas of the country, one could be nearly naked and still not be breaking the law. I remember in one area, as long as the anus was not exposed, it is legal to expose anything (of course excepting the actual genitals). In some areas, it is illegal to display a penis in the state of being turgid, even if completely clothed (at least the last I had read about the particular situation that brought that to light, so to speak).

Lewd basically would refer to more of how something was exposed or referred to. Making the universal symbolic action for a guy masturbating could be considered to be lewd if it was represented to imitate a male masturbating. That same action is obviously not going to be considered to be lewd if a person is giving a visual demonstration of how to use one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/ydcjnnc



Obviously the exact same action but the intent is what would cause it to be viewed as lewd.

 

[Beowulf999]

Not so sure I agree on that. A bit like definitions for "obscene" or "sexual harassment" in that the offense (in gray areas relating to the definitions) is often in the mind of the person offended by something that in their mind they deem obscene, or sexual harassment, or lewd; and what is in their mind often is part of their personal morality which is part of their upbringing. Maybe getting a bit off track here, but I just think issues like this should be made more clear than they are.

 

[Beowulf999]

Wow. Utterly amazing. What a messed up legal and moral system we are in here in the USA. I guess you are right though, it should not surprise me given the basic underlying culture of the USA compared to much of the rest of the world.

 

[BOR]

Not so sure I agree on that. A bit like definitions for "obscene" or "sexual harassment" in that the offense (in gray areas relating to the definitions) is often in the mind of the person offended by something that in their mind they deem obscene, or sexual harassment, or lewd; and what is in their mind often is part of their personal morality which is part of their upbringing. Maybe getting a bit off track here, but I just think issues like this should be made more clear than they are.

Sexual harassment is not a crime, but to give a little insight to what I meant, here is the case, refering to the reasonably intelligent man doctrine;

Page, 545:

We reverse the judgment against Palmer because the ordinance is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied to Palmer, it failed to give "a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. . . ." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).

http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/544/case.html