The difference between public indecency and indecent exposure may seem trivial to mature, law-abiding adults. But in Boulder, Colo., the free-spirited town home to the University of Colorado, it's a fairly common police matter.
Now, with the rise of sex offender statutes and registries, the distinction could also lead to very serious consequences for a careless prank.
Take the case of Boulder's annual "Naked Pumpkin Run," a bizarre if harmless Halloween antic, where last year a dozen participants were cited for indecent exposure. Colordado's Daily Camera reports that under state law, this is a class 1 misdemeanor and requires registering as a sex offender, whereas the charge of public indecency is a class 1 petty offense, on a par with littering or stealing a book from a library. The public indecency charge doesn't carry sex offender status.
None of the Pumpkin runners was convicted of the more serious charge. Instead they plead guilty to disorderly conduct, which does not imply any nudity offense.
But the gap between the applicable laws has the ACLU and locals on both sides of the political aisle concerned. They fear excessive and long-lasting punishments for actions that have nothing to do with true sex offenses. They also question whether it's good policy to have the pranksters and other minor offenders (such as people caught urinating in public) charged in a workaround way, leaving record that don't truly reflect the crime.
"We're dealing with a square peg in a round hole," said Boulder County D.A. Stan Garnett, in an unfortunate metaphor for this topic. He added, "Most people would say people running down the mall with pumpkins on
their heads may not be somebody who is at risk of becoming a sex
offender in the future."
Also Interesting:
Get our Newsletter!
Click here to sign up and stay informed