Victory for beachgoers and plumbers
If exposure of half of the buttock constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty.
So noted a Maryland court in acquitting a man who mooned his neighbors at the conclusion of a heated argument and was subsequently charged with indecent exposure. [Washington Post, MSNBC] Maryland law requires exposure of a person’s “private parts” to uphold a conviction for indecent exposure, and Judge Debelius held that the man’s buttocks didn’t meet that requirement.
I guess my major question though is why two major news outlets thought this was a major headline article. Not really new law, and no celebrities were reported to be involved. Is it sweeps week on the internet?
California courts probably would have reached a similar conclusion. In 2000, the California Court of Appeals overturned a finding that Dallas W., a minor, had committed indecent exposure by mooning traffic. As little Dallas flashed his flesh “strictly to annoy and to affront people,” [the trail court's finding] and not with any sexual intent, he had not indecently exposed himself.
Sure there are other local laws that regulate these things, but poor taste and bad judgment don’t necessarily warrant a criminal record as a sex offender, especially in the age of beachgoing thong-wearers and plumbers running amok.
Original post:Victory for beachgoers and plumbers by at Google Blog Search: thong wearers