By the way, the definition in NY State of public lewdness (a Class B misdemeanor) is as follows: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>NY Pen L sec. 245.00 A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or ( in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he so be observed.</div> Public place, defined in sec. 240.00 means <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1.... a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, but is not limited to, highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence.</div> Transportation facility includes the entire premises of such. While NY law is obviously not governing on Craig's case, it's basic setup is similar.
They're not the same. Yours says that <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>For the purposes of public fornication, "public" is defined as any place where a person knows his or her actions are observable by persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.</div> That's MUCH more limited than the NY definition, which defines a public place as <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1.... a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, but is not limited to, highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence.</div> Your definition is subjective, a defense attorney's argument. Mine is objective, and the law of New York state - which, again, isn't at all determinative on the case at hand.
The statute is interested in objective definitions of the place, while the lawyer is concerned with the intent - and will try to get it read into the statutory definitions. Have I mentioned that I dislike defense attorneys?
Mine is state of Wisconsin and quite similar. Speaking of Hugh Grant, he got busted in England for a public sex act when his neighbors could see into his house. The NY statute allows peeping toms to make a complaint. You still don't see the absurdity?
NY law doesn't provide for that. For peeping Toms to make the complaint, then they have to prove intent as well. For public places, there is no such need. There are gradations, not absurdities, except that English law is a bit strange to begin with; I'll agree on that count. Now I need to look up the Wisconsin statutes...
"any place where a person knows his or her actions are observable by persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse." In your bedroom with the shades not drawn.
The Wisconsin statute is as follows: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>944.15. Public fornication (1) In this section, "in public" means in a place where or in a manner such that the person knows or has reason to know that his or her conduct is observable by or in the presence of persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.</div> There are two different standards in there. The act is either observable by or in the presence of others. The standard is a reasonableness standard, as has been made clear throughout. On the statute, he had NO such expectation of privacy, as the nature of public restrooms is such that he had reason to know that his actions would be (at least potentially - and at any time) in the presence of other persons.
Your definition conveniently leaves out the operative half as is applicable to this case - as I'd expect from a defense attorney's website.
LOL Craig didn't have sex with anyone in a public place. And the definition I posted doesn't leave out anything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL Craig didn't have sex with anyone in a public place. And the definition I posted doesn't leave out anything.</div> You just hit on the argument I would use if I were defending Craig. The definition you posted leaves out the most applicable part of the statute<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>... or in the presence of persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.</div> Emphasis added. It's the part about presence that would give rise to a claim, not potential observance of the act.
Read it again. I'll bold the part about in the presence of persons... http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/Glossary.asp#Public Public For the purposes of public fornication, "public" is defined as any place where a person knows his or her actions are observable by persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse. Public beaches are always public places. Private beaches may be public places depending upon the circumstances; in most situations, private beaches are public for the purposes of determining if fornication has occurred in public, but it is a rebuttable presumption (an arguable point) as to whether a person had a right to expect privacy. If the water ways can be traversed by public, then it is safe to assume that the beach is public for the purposes of this statute
Observable does not equalv in the presence of. The statute makes that clear by including the latter language deliberately, so as to include instances where it's not limited to line of sight. Presence is a much broader term. No matter which way you cut it, the lawyer site leaves out half of the language, deliberately. There is a reason for that, as seen above.
If you're on a public beach, you're in the presence of other beachgoers. The last sentence makes it pretty clear, too, that you don't have to be observed.
Not at all the same. Public beaches are public places regardless of whether anyone else is there at a given time. And again, you're citing the opinion of a lawyer, not a Court or legislature, which excludes a crucial part of the statute, and otherwise is less than precise. In fact, I'd argue that the statue (on its face at least) would protect more than the other definition.
The Wisconsin statute doesn't deal with public places, by the way. It deals with the concept of being "in public" instead. It seems to require actual people being involved.
