Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: California Nudity Laws

This is actually a more complex question than it appears. Let’s expose the naked truth of the law. First, whether your husband was guilty of “indecent exposure” under pc 314 depends on several factors. First, the nudity must have been “lewd”. Second, it must have either been in a “public place”, or any “other place where there are present persons to be offended or annoyed…”. This statute is somewhat inherently vague because “lewd” has no precise meaning. Much depends on the actual physical layout of your property and the neighboring property. If at the time your husband was engaging in nude auto mechanics it did not appear that there was any way anybody could have seen him in the ordinary course of viewing from their own property or the public road (trespassers have no standing to be offended), he would not be guilty of this crime.

What I am struck, and somewhat appalled, by is your neighbor’s act of photographing him. This seems somewhat voyeuristic and at odds with their claim of being offended. It would have been a lot more neighborly to have just called and pointed out that he can be seen in the nude and would he please in the future avoid being nude in view of their property. Second, depending on how they took the pictures, it could be an unlawful invasion of his privacy. Consider California Civil Code Section 1708.8:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1708-1725

What this section basically says is that if they had to either trespass on your property to take the pictures, or use any kind of visual enhancing device, such as a telephoto lens, they have committed the tort of invasion of privacy. Under this statute, you could sue them for up to three times the damages caused to you, including embarrassment and injury to reputation, should these photos be in any way published as threatened. You could even sue them now if they do nothing with them, just due to the fact of having taken them.

What I would suggest is the following: If it appears from the layout of the properties that they had to either trespass on your property or use a telephoto lens, he is not guilty and you should tell them that what they did violates 1708.8 of the Civil Code and you will sue them if they do not destroy the photographs and negatives in your presence, or turn them over to you. Tell them if they turn them over to the police, they will be looking at even larger damages.

On the other hand, if he should have expected to be easily seen from the other property or road without visual enhancement, the approach you might take is just to tell them that he will be more careful in the future and to please turn over the photographs and negatives for the sake of avoiding any possibility of public embarrassment should the photos ever fall into somebody else’s hands. If they won’t do that, they are very unneighborly.

Re: California Nudity Laws

This is actually a more complex question than it appears. Let’s expose the naked truth of the law. First, whether your husband was guilty of indecent exposure under pc 314 depends on several factors. First, the nudity must have been “lewd.” Second, it must have either been in a “public place” or any “other place where there are present persons to be offended or annoyed”. This statute is somewhat inherently vague because “lewd” has no precise meaning. Much depends on the actual physical layout of your property and the neighboring property. If at the time your husband was engaging in nude auto mechanics it did not appear that there was any way anybody could have seen him in the ordinary course of viewing from their own property or the public road (trespassers have no standing to be offended), he would not be guilty of this crime.

What I am struck, and somewhat appalled, by is your neighbor’s act of photographing him. This seems somewhat voyeuristic and at odds with their claim of being offended. It would have been a lot more neighborly to have just called and pointed out that he can be seen in the nude and would he please in the future avoid being nude in view of their property. Second, depending on how they took the pictures, it could be an unlawful invasion of his privacy. Consider California Civil Code Section 1708.8:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1708-1725

What this section basically says is that if they had to either trespass on your property to take the pictures, or use any kind of visual enhancing device, such as a telephoto lens, they have committed the tort of invasion of privacy. Under this statute, you could sue them for up to three times the damages caused to you, including embarrassment and injury to reputation, should these photos be in any way published as threatened. You could even sue them now if they do nothing with them, just due to the fact of having taken them.

What I would suggest is the following: If it appears from the layout of the properties that they had to either trespass on your property or use a telephoto lens, he is not guilty and you should tell them that what they did violates 1708.8 of the Civil Code and you will sue them if they do not destroy the photographs and negatives in your presence, or turn them over to you. Tell them if they turn them over to the police, they will be looking at even larger damages. On the other hand, if he should have expected to be easily seen from the other property or road without visual enhancement, the approach you might take is just to tell them that he will be more careful in the future and to please turn over the photographs and negatives for the sake of avoiding any possibility of public embarrassment should the photos ever fall into somebody else's hands. If they won't do that, they are very unneighborly.

Re: California Nudity Laws

This is actually a more complex question than it seems. Let's expose the naked truth of the law. First, whether your husband was guilty of indecent exposure under pc 314 depends on several factors. First, the nudity must have been "lewd". Second, it must have either been in a "public place" or "any other place where there are prsent persons to be offended or annoyed. This statute is somewhat inherently vague because "lewd" has no precise meaning. Much depends on the actual physical layout of your property and the neighboring property. If at the time your husband was engaging in nude auto mechanics it did not appear that there was any way anybody could have seen him in the ordinary course of viewing from their own property or the public road (trespassers have no standing to be offended), he would not be guilty of this crime.

What I am struck, and somewhat appalled, by is your neighbor's act of photographing him. This seems somewhat voyeuristic and at odds with their claim of being offended It would have been a lot more neighborly to have just called and pointed out the he can be seen in the nude and would he please in the future avoid being nude in view of their property. Second, depending on how they took the pictures, it could be an unlawful invasion of his privacy. Consider California Civil Code Section 1708.8:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1708-1725

What this section basically says is that if they had to either trespass on your property to take the pictures, or use any kind of visual enhancing device, such as a telephoto lens, they have committed the tort of invasion of privacy. Under this statute, you could sue them for up to three times the damages caused to you, including embarrassment and injury to reputation, should these photos be in any way published as threatened. You could even sue them now if they do nothing with them, just due to the fact of having taken them.

What I would suggest is the following: If it appears from the layout of the properties that they had to either trespass on your property or use a telephoto lens, he is not guilty and you should tell them that what they did violates 1708.8 of the Civil Code and you will sue them if they do not destroy the photographs and negatives in you presence, or turn them over to you. Tell tem that if they turn them over to the police, they will be looking at even larger damages. On theother hand, if he should have expected to be easily seen from the other property or road without visual enhancement, the approach you might take is just to tell them that he will be more careful in the future and to please turn over the photographs and negatives for the sake of avoiding any possibility of public embarrassment should the photos ever fall into somebody's hands. If they won't do that, they are very unneighborly.

Re: California Nudity Laws

I thought I should add a follow up. I was wondering to myself what it is they are "threatening" you to do without disclosing those photos to the police. If they start demanding money, it would likely be the crime of extortion, so, if that happens, please contact me immediately at [email protected].

Re: California Nudity Laws

feel free to email me directly with your contact information for a free evaluation/consultation regarding your case.

Re: California Nudity Laws

There is no state law that bans simple public nudity and I would be surprised if El Dorado County has an ordinance on this subject. Where they exist, such ordinances have been upheld as constitutional but few jurisdictions have passed them probably because public nudity isn't much of a problem in most places. In the spirit of good neighborly relations, it might be wise to refrain from upsetting the sensibilities of some neigbors who prefer that the people around them be clothed or may fear that their children will be damaged by the sight of the naked human form. My advice is not take this on as an issue unless it is very important to you. Whatever the merits of the debate about tastefulness, decorum and the like, it is not a law enforcement issue except in the few places that regulate this type of conduct, Berkeley and Los Angeles County being notable examples.

Re: California Nudity Laws

Aside from wondering why anyone would change the oil in the nude a copy of the penal code regarding nudity is setforth below:

314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either: 1. Exposes

his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in

any place where there are present other persons to be offended or

annoyed thereby; or, 2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person

so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or

to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view

of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is

adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Every person who violates subdivision 1 of this section after

having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or

trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the

inhabited portion of any other building, is punishable by

imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail not exceeding

one year.

Upon the second and each subsequent conviction under subdivision 1

of this section, or upon a first conviction under subdivision 1 of

this section after a previous conviction under Section 288, every

person so convicted is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by

imprisonment in state prison.