Being naked at home is a John Dillinger-esque crime?
Keep your curtains closed to avoid misdemeanors
UPDATE (April 8, 2010): Virginia came to its senses.
Sometimes it’s nice to walk around your house naked. I, for one, don’t particularly like to do it when there are strangers in the house, but I have interviewed people who do.
But what if the strangers are outside your house and look through your windows and see you naked? For an au natural Virginia man, this scenario has resulted in a conviction for indecent exposure.
Findlaw defines indecent exposure as “purposefully display[ing] one’s genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended.” Erick Williamson, 29, was in his private home, but he was viewable from the public streets. A judge decided Friday that this means Williamson is guilty.
Let’s flesh out the problems with this ruling, after the jump.
Erick Williamson was having a cup of coffee in the buff one October morning. A woman drove by and saw him through his front window. Later, a mother and her 7-year-old son walked by on their way to school and saw him. Rather than averting their eyes, they decided to call the police.
If Williamson was a woman, and the passers-by had been male, the charges might have gone the other way. The male passers-by would be viewed as peeping toms. But that’s a gender issue that I won’t get into. Let’s stick with privacy.
The judge’s ruling basically means that if you have windows, your home is not a private space. The Washington Post says that Judge Ian O’Flaherty compared Williamson to notorious criminal John Dillinger:
[O'Flaherty] likened Williamson to bank robber John Dillinger, who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”
Dillinger robbed banks and killed police officers. Williamson drank coffee in the buff. This comparison seems, um, problematic.
So the takeaway lesson here: Walking around your house naked is a crime, but peeping into someone’s windows is okay.
Williamson is appealing the conviction. We at the Not-So Private Parts wish him luck.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert McDowell and Chris Rohde, Kashmir Hill. Kashmir Hill said: being naked at home comparable to shooting up banks. oh, virginia. http://bit.ly/4VfuKX [...]
I walk around my condo in my jocks all the time. The young, attractive woman whose living room window faces mine used to walk around in the buff. One day we were both at our windows at the same time. She quickly covered her breasts by crossing her arms across her chest. Suddenly, she realized she needed one more hand to complete the cover-up, and she ran from the room. Days later when I saw her on a jogging trail, she smiled knowingly. I smiled back. She now keeps her verticals closed all the time.
While Judge O’Flaherty’s Dillinger reference creates an inappropriate comparison, methinks there is more to this story than (sorry) meets the eye. Judge O’Flaherty convicted Williamson of an obscene display that, according to the testimony of two passersby, consisted of more than just “hanging out” in his apartment au natural. The fact that the Judge believed the two women over Williamson’s narrative doesn’t mean that you can’t be naked in your apartment. It means that you can’t use the fact that you’re indoors to save yourself from an indecency conviction when you (and here’s where the Judge takes a side) intentionally expose yourself to the general public through your open screen door or front window.
One thing that should be noted is that one of the women was a police officer’s wife, as noted by Tatonka below. That doesn’t necessarily undermine or strengthen her narrative but it does complicate it. And even with those narratives, it would seem to me that a first-time incident like this should result in a warning rather than a criminal record.
In response to another comment. See in context »It may at first appear harsh that a judge would fine or jail someone accused of this so-called crime. It should be noted, however, that the gentleman’s privacy was not diminished by a ruling against him. The people who saw him in the buff were on public property and could reasonably expect to avoid a gentleman in the buff. The defendant has a responsibility not to impinge upon the rights of others, even from within his home. To clarify my point, if the gentleman had shot someone who was walking along the sidewalk, it wouldn’t matter that the shooter was within the confines of his own home.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t understand how one of the witnesses, Yvette Dean, being married to a police officer complicates her narrative or plays into any “unreasonable bias in this case” (as per BUFFalo322). Granted, her connection to the Po PO may have contributed to Williamson’s speedy arrest, but he received a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers.
The jury concluded that at around 8:40 a.m., Mr. Williamson intentionally showed his willy to Mrs. Dean and her son. The jury apparently found Mrs. Dean credible, and believed her account the events. Specifically, that Mr. Williamson attracted her attention by loudly rattling a door, then stood naked in the open doorway and made eye contact with her while she walked past his home. She further testified that as she rounded the corner, he followed her, moving to stand naked and looking out at her from behind a large picture window. The jury also believed school librarian Joyce Giuliani’s account, that earlier that morning she heard loud singing and looked over to see a man standing naked in his window. From this testimony, the jury concluded that Mr. Williamson intentionally thrust his pubic area to public arena.
Setting aside whatever double standards may exist regarding the perceived acceptability of full frontal male nudity as opposed to female, Williams was not found guilty for being naked in his home. He was convicted of intentionally exposing himself to the public. I have a difficult time seeing any police driven conspiracy behind the jury’s verdict, even if they chose to find a police officer’s wife more credible than Mr. Williamson.
In response to another comment. See in context »It might be important noting that the woman who called the cops in the first place, is a wife of a cop. You can’t tell me that didn’t play into the unreasonable bias in this case as well.
Don’t be an idiot, the guy wasn’t sitting innocently in his house minding his own business while various women snuck up to his window and peeked in at him. He was standing in front of the window knowing full well he could be seen from the outside, that was the entire point of standing there. He wasn’t hanging out in the privacy of his own home, he was deliberately exposing himself to people walking by. He’d have been disappointed if no one had looked. A total creep.
It’s a scary thought that a judge would make such a ridiculous comparison. Un-freaking-believable.
Arg, situations such as this are so infuriating. The reverse sexism which has been continually building over the last ~20 years (certainly the last 10) has socially conditioned women (and even some men!) that men are all a bunch of potential predators, rapists, pedophiles, perverts, etc.
Look let’s just say it, men are disgusting sexual deviants of every stripe and color, anytime a man is accused of a sexual crime the already socially conditioned populace (which is much more likely to report & accuse a man in the first place) automatically presumes him guilty because after all….he’s a man and men are disgusting perverts in need of serious punishment and the inclusion on sex offender lists.
Women on the other hand are beautiful, virginal, pure creatures who never have impure thoughts and certainly NEVER seek sexual gratification. As the author rightly pointed out, a nude woman in her own apartment would automatically be presumed innocent – obviously she simply forgot to close her blinds, furthermore no complaints would have been made in the first place. But those men who are down on the street walking to their 10-12hr/day jobs they must work for 45 years to support their families better not glance up – as men THEY’LL be the ones who get reported as peeping toms since we’ve been so well conditioned to believe men are sexual deviants and perverts. In fact I bet one of those evil men broke into the apartment the night before to sabotage the curtains! Arrest this hard working man! To the sex offender registry you go!
Very well put,Smokey. You are absolutely correct. Thanks for the clarity on a subject that all we men agree upon. We are all very tired of being viewed as low life, potential sexual devients and pediphiles just because we have a penis, while all women are the “pure as the driven snow” angels. What a bunch of bull.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ms. Hill,
I will grant that the judge’s comparison was a clear cut case of overwrought hyperbole. Moreover, John Dillinger never thought what he was doing was “right”. He wanted money and the banks had it and the only way for him to get what he wanted involved breaking the law – and he was sure he would never be caught.
With that as an introduction, the man is clearly guilty of the crime of which he was charged. I was recently in my legally mandated biannual “Anti-Sexual Harassment Prevention Training” for supervisors and managers. An example the instructor used was exactly this situation. A postal deliver person or meter reader or someone like that comes up to a house to do his or her job. However the resident is visibly naked in the front window. Workers have the right, at least in California, to do their jobs without being exposed to this sort of thing. The employer has a responsibility to ensure that their employees work in an environment free from sexual imagery. That is the law.
I find this whole story very odd… Has anyone heard of “Earth Friend Gen” she has a habit of riding her bicycle and sometimes rollarblades in the nude thru downtown and other parts of portland (the other one). Many people have reported it but it has been quoted from the police themselves “The exposure of genitalia and the intention of the party who is exposing their genitalia has to be to arouse another person.” is the only way it is illegal since she is just enjoying her ride it’s legal. At least this guy was in his house. Now it’s a difference story if he made some sort of sexual reference while the mom and kid were staring at them. What it boils down to is the mom and kid should be charged for peeping into someone’s house.
The officer’s wife was TRESPASSING!! (but of course she didn’t get in trouble)
I also thought this was the most ridiculous part of the charge (as opposed to the trial, which was the Dillinger comment). The guy probably was viewable from the street, but she wasn’t on it, she was in his yard.
In response to another comment. See in context »After reading most of these comments, I’m beginning to understand what John Adams meant when he referred to democracy as “mob rule.”
The man in question infringed upon the rights of passersby; it doesn’t matter that he was in his own house.
[...] Hill writes on True/Slant: Sometimes it’s nice to walk around your house naked. I, for one, don’t particularly like to do [...]
[...] Walking Around Naked at Home now a crime [...]
[...] Source:http://trueslant.com/KashmirHill/2009/12/21/being-naked-at-home-is-a-crime-for-erick-williamson/ [...]
[...] Source:http://trueslant.com/KashmirHill/2009/12/21/being-naked-at-home-is-a-crime-for-erick-williamson/ [...]
[...] I learned that being naked in your home is a crime if someone can see you through the window and that this is probably not true if you are female and the people looking in are male. Gratuitous nudity [...]
I read on another site, but can not confirm, that the police canvased the area looking for other witnesses. Seems that the news came out rather quick and rather than be embarrassed and leave the case alone, they decided to pursue it vigorously.
Seems kid of set up because it was the wife of a cop and the police dept wanted to save face. I still do not understand why a warning would not have sufficed.
So if someone walks by my house and sees my two little kids running around naked inside, will I be charged with possession of child pornography?
Being naked at home is a John Dillinger-esque crime? – Kashmir Hill – The Not-So Private Parts – True/Slant…
Thank you for submitting this cool story – Trackback from SurvCast…
For a human to arrest a human for not having a lifeless thing on is in, and of its self a crime in the sight of God. God never told his creation that they were naked, and nether should we. Stop the foolishness of making our natural nude body bad, and then humans will stop bowing to clothing like waring idol worshipers bowed to the false gods of the Amorites,and then we will worship God Doing good to the least of these Christs brethren.