Public Indecency is charged in Fort Collins and Larimer County when a person exposes themselves in a public place causing alarm to anyone who can see the exposure. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals had to rule on an issue regarding the ‘public place’ aspect of this crime. This issue came about when a man in a Colorado prison exposed himself to a prison employee as he walked inside from the yard. He was charged with Indecent Exposure and when he went to trial, the judge ruled that he was not eligible for the lesser charge of Public Indecency because the prison area was not public. However, the conviction was overturned and now the man will be allowed another trial where the jury will be given the option of convicting him of Public Indecency because the common areas of the prison are deemed as public.
Larimer County Public Indecency Lawyer: Definition of Public Indecency and Public Areas in Prison
The Larimer County, Colorado law definition of Public Indecency – C.R.S. 18-7-301 – is:
(a) An act of sexual intercourse; or
(b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2010, (HB 10-1334), ch. 359, p. 1707, § 1, effective August 11, 2010.)
(c) A lewd exposure of an intimate part as defined by section 18-3-401 (2) of the body, not including the genitals, done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of any person; or
(d) A lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or
(e) A knowing exposure of the person’s genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.
(2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2), public indecency is a class 1 petty offense.
(b) Public indecency as described in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor if the violation is committed subsequent to a conviction for a violation of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section or for a violation of a comparable offense in any other state or in the United States, or for a violation of a comparable municipal ordinance.
Based on the information provided in the article, the man was arguing that his actions matched with subsection (e) because he did not have a sexual intent. When a sexual intent is added to the exposure, then it is charged as Indecent Exposure.