Unlawful to Wet Ones Pants?

[Anonymous]

In the state of NSW in Australia it is not an offence, if caught short in public, you duck behind a car or tree etc and take relief. My ex boss was on a jury a few years back on susch a case.

Draining the spuds in the middle of a crowded mall would probably be a different story.

[LadyP]

(pertaining to Doug's post in response to "Punishment for Urniating in Public")

Doug said: "Getting ones cock out in a public place to pee (which I did on several occasions in the past) I now realise is not an acceptable way to behave in a civilised society. Nowadays I would rather wet my jeans than face charges of indecent exposure etc. (In the UK it is an offence to "Urinate in an public place" but I don't think any police officer would enforce that law if you were fully clothed at the time i.e. wet your pants "


My response: Interesting that you should bring that up Doug. I've always wondered what the local police would do about someone wetting their pants in public. After all, nothing is exposed...however, if the law states that "urinating in public" is against the law, would it still be considered unlawful to pee ones pants. What about peeing out from under a skirt?

I'd love to hear people opinions about thisMy response:Doug said: <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

[Anonymous]

public urination in most states (exposing yourself)is a misdemeaner a less serious form of arrest but they do haul you to jail then they give you another charge public lewdness,costs you money for a lawyer etc but just don't get caught,doing it in your pant's is not against the law.

[Farkenleaker]

There's a really old law still on the books in the UK - if you yell "Pain! Pain! Pain!" you are legally entitled to urinate in the street. If a cop is present he is obliged to shield you with his cloak. It would take an act of parliament to repeal so any local ordnance to the contrary is null and void.

The opinion a couple years ago on the misc.legal newsgroup was that you could plead "act of necessity".

There was a recent appellate court decision in the US state of Ohio. To wit:

CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- CHARLES PUGH,
Defendant-Appellant


NO. 69194

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY

1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1450

April 11, 1996, DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court.
Case No.
95-CRB-11123.


COUNSEL

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee: CAROLYN WATTS-ALLEN, ESQ., Assistant Prosecutor,
PINKEY S. CARR,
ESQ., Assistant Prosecutor, 8th Floor Justice Center, 1200 Ontario Street,
Cleveland, Ohio
44113.

For Defendant-Appellant: KEEVIN J. BERMAN, ESQ., Cleveland Legal Aid
Society, 1223 West 6th
Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113.

JUDGES

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE. SPELLACY, C.J., and KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR.

AUTHOR: BLACKMON

OPINION

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:

Public indecency is a sex offense in Ohio, noscitur a sociis. The
question before us is whether the Ohio General Assembly intended to make sex
offenders out of individuals who urinate alfresco, whether they take
precaution to avoid discovery or not. In this case, defendant-appellant,
Charles Pugh, appeals his conviction for public indecency and assigns the
following errors for our review:

I. THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING PUGH OF INDECENT EXPOSURE UNDER
CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 619.07 (OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2907.09)
BECAUSE THIS CODE SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ACTIVITY THE DEFENDANT WAS
ARRESTED FOR.

II. THE COURT ERRED WHEN CONVICTING PUGH OF PUBLIC INDECENCY WHEN
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE TRIAL CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT PUGH DID NOT
ACT RECKLESSLY.

III. THE COURT ERRED WHEN FINDING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF PUBLIC
INDECENCY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT WAS NOT LIKELY TO BE SEEN BY A
PASSERBY AND HIS CONDUCT DID NOT AFFRONT
THE ONLY WITNESS.

Having reviewed the record of the proceedings and the legal arguments
presented by the parties, we reverse the decision of the trial court. The
apposite facts follow.

On April 24, 1995 at approximately 9:20 p.m., Cleveland Police
Officers David A. Reuse and Jeffrey Ryan were on patrol in the area of Bridge
and West 26th Streets. As they travelled south on West 26th Street, they
observed Charles Pugh standing next to his parked car near the sidewalk and
an open field. Because of "the way he was standing," the police officers
could tell he was urinating. As they approached, they saw Pugh urinating on
the ground with his "private parts" exposed.

Since 1965, when he was in the military and had surgery on his penis,
he has had a urinary problem. Consequently, at times he has difficulty with
bladder control. Pugh admitted he was urinating in a public place, but
maintained he had to go and could not wait until he got up to his apartment.


Pugh was charged with public indecency under Cleveland Codified
Ordinance, Section 619.07(a)(1). The case proceeded to a bench trial. Pugh
was found guilty and fined $ 50 and costs.

In his first assignment of error, Pugh argues the trial court erred in
finding him
guilty of public indecency because Cleveland Codified Ordinance, Section
619.07 does not apply to the conduct for which he was arrested. Thus, the
issue in this assignment of error is whether as a matter of law "***answering
an urgent call of nature alfresco***" by urinating in public constitutes
sufficient evidence of public indecency under Cleveland Codified Ordinance,
Section 619.07.

The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether "*** after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed.
2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781. Cleveland Codified Ordinance, Section 619.07
provides: "(a) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under
circumstances in which his or her conduct is likely to be viewed by and
affront others, not members of his or her household: (1) Expose his or her
private parts ***."

The rules of construction for ordinances and statutes which define
offenses are the same. Vermilion v. Stevenson (1982), 7 Ohio App. 3d 170, 454
N.E.2d 965. Ordinances defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly
construed against the City and liberally construed in favor of the accused.
Cleveland Codified Ordinance, Section 601.04. See, also, R.C. 2901.04.
Cleveland Codified Ordinance, Section 619.07 adopted the same language as the
public indecency statute enacted by the General Assembly, R.C. 2907.09. Under
R.C. 2907.09, the Committee Comment to H 511 notes as follows:

The gist of this section is to prohibit sexual exposures or
actual or simulated sexual displays, when done under circumstances in which
such exposures or displays are likely to be seen by and offend person not
members of the offender's household.

***Answering an urgent call of nature alfresco would not be an
offense if the actor takes reasonable precautions against discovery, although
if he or she is imprudent in choosing a site the act might constitute
disorderly conduct under new section 2917.11(A)(5).***

The legislative comment to R.C. 2907.09 creates an exception to public
indecency for a person who exposes his or her private parts when done for the
purpose of "answering an urgent call of nature." However, if a person is
imprudent in choosing a site, at most, the act "might" constitute disorderly
conduct. The offense of public indecency was clearly enacted to punish
"sexual exposures," not to punish a person for answering an urgent call of
nature. Construing the offense of public indecency strictly against the City
and liberally in favor of Pugh, we find as a matter of law that merely
"answering an urgent call of nature alfresco" by urinating in public does not
constitute public indecency and is not a violation of Cleveland Codified
Ordinances, Section 619.07.

In this case, the pertinent facts are not in dispute; Pugh was
observed urinating with his private parts exposed in public beside his parked
car next to an open field. Although Pugh was imprudent in choosing the place
where he urinated, his actions did not provide sufficient evidence of public
indecency. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is reversed.

Because the first assignment of error is dispositive of this case,
Pugh's second and third assignments of error are moot.

Judgment reversed.

This cause is reversed.

It is, therefore, considered that said Appellant recover of said
Appellee his costs
herein.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said Court to carry
this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant
to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.

SPELLACY, C.J., and

KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR.

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON

JUDGE

N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D),
Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see
Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to
indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order
of the court and time period for review will begin to run.

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Doug said: "Getting ones cock out in a public place to pee (which I did on several occasions in the past) I now realise is not an acceptable way to behave in a civilised society.

Blah! No offense, you're entitled to your opinion Doug. But for me, that kind of thinking is way too hung up. I'll continue to whip it out in public when I feel it's unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that someone will see me. Maybe the "but certainly not impossible" concept is part of the enjoyment. images/smiles/icon_wink.gif I know peeing somewhere that you're "not allowed to" is definately part of the enjoyment. images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>LadyP: I've always wondered what the local police would do about someone wetting their pants in public. After all, nothing is exposed...however, if the law states that "urinating in public" is against the law, would it still be considered unlawful to pee ones pants. What about peeing out from under a skirt?
<hr></blockquote>

Nice to see you back, LadyP. images/smiles/icon_wink.gif I cant picture anyone ever getting arrested for wetting their undies in public, regardless of whether it's pants or a skirt.

Laws against urinating in public are designed to stop guys from whipping out their cocks in public, and even more so, to stop us from whipping our cocks out indescretly, instead of choosing a discreet area to whip it out and pee.

Icing on the cake: Although it's a weak law that needs to be much stronger if it's ever going to be enforced seriously by the courts, I'm sure at the very least, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), would completely prevent prosecution for wetting yourself. Every court in the country would look at peeing your pants as an unavoidable medical incedent protected by the ADA.

Women may even have an extra safegaurd against prosecution. I'm not 100% sure of how well this concept is backed up by sound research, but women are generally perceived as having weaker bladders than men. I cant picture any American police department in America risking getting itself involved in a sex discrimination suit filed by a women who got arrested for peeing her pants.

Let it flow, LadyP, I'm completely sure your safe from prosecution. My habit of whipping it out in public is less safe, but I cuold always cite Farkenleaker's case. It's a risk i accept without hesitation. images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Back to skirt peeing for a second, I think you should try it in a movie theater. images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[Anonymous]

HAving worked in the retail trade all my life, I had seen quite a few "accidents" in the store just about by every gender and age and size.
Ive have had women customers stand at the order desk and just piss their pants and stand in the puddle, Ive had little kids, including a few teenage boys or girls pee in their pants in front of everyone.
I agree its weird to have laws about peeing ones pants or someplace where you are seen. Here at home in our area I figure if you whip out your willy where you are seen you can get arrested. I think if you do an obivious pants pissing like in a mall full of people, the security would charge you with disorderly conduct. That takes in a whole lot of terority and covers all sins.
Now whether or not a judge will find you guilty and fine you I think is due to the curcumstances in each case.
Like if you were in a public place and whipped out your cock in front of people and pissed, you probably will get arrested. If you stand and purposely stand and exibit yourself pissing your pants in an erotic sense you would get arrested.
Though if you are standing someplace not noticed and pee and not attract attention you probably would get away with it, and if seen, the determination if you were under the "influence of any booze or drugs would also be cause for public drunkness and disorderly conduct (for example). I guess the law varies depending on circumstances in each case.
Thus each case would stand on its own, in most cases it would be judged, "oh, she or he, had an accident" and would be noticed but then disregarded. If though you were to make a public display that would be deemed lewd then thats a different case.
I think one ducking behind A car door in a mall parking lot and peeing, no one would care or notice. But standing and exposing ones parts and pissing openly wouldnt go over so good.
I guess I make some sense here?

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I guess I make some sense here?

Well, you're assuming the general public knows that people wet themselves for erotic value, and thus could get arrested for doing it in public.

The general public does not know this, and in fact, assumes that anyone wetting themselves must have done it because there was absolutely no alternative whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

YIKES I mentioned I feel the ADA is too weak. Now instead of being thought of as a flaming conservative, I'm gonna be thought of as a flaming liberal! images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[Ger]

There's a difference between wetting in public because you couldn't hold it any longer or wet yourself on purpose to shock people. Even if you don't intent to shock them, if it's clear you do it on purpose and hope someone sees you doing it, it is against the law. At least in Holland it is.
There's of course a thin line between really doing it on purpose and hoping someone sees you and using the excuse you really couldn't hold it any longer. Smart cop that finds out it wasn't really an accident. But on the other hand, if you are reported more than once doing these things the cops have a record of that. Suppose someone followed you and reported your driving plate to them or something like that. And that happened by different people more than once... The excuse "I couldn't hold it any longer" won't work in that case. And if they take you to the police station and you claim you have a bladder problem they probably ask your family doctor if you have a known problem. If not... being caught wetting in public will bring you in problems for sure.
Just my two little pennies on this matter. Be carefull what you do.

Ger.

[ 08 March 2003: Message edited by: Ger ]</p>

[Anonymous]

To Farkenleaker: I too acknowledge the ancient UK law, still on statute, that you can, in extremis, demand a policeman hide you with his cloak while you urinate. This law was originally designed for women, and particularly women who were pregnant. Of course, policemen no longer have cloaks, so I wonder if, being forced to urinate publicly, you should approach a policeman and demand he take measures to "conceal" you - or policewoman, maybe? You might then have recourse to legal action against the police if they failed to provide? Some interesting scenarios occur.

In essence, it is illegal to urinate in a public place in such a way as to perpetrate an "act of indecency" - in other words to pull it out and fire: but I wonder if the same attitudes now prevail as those which initiated the statute? To produce your dick in public is much more likely to cause amusement than horror in this century. You might even pull! If you were female and had to hunker down in public I should say you almost cetainly would?

But it is not illegal to wet yourself: although, again, the failure of local authorities to provide adequate facilities to allow you to go is an area of statute yet to be explored - I look forward to the first civil action against a local authority for "loss of dignity and reputation" - god bless the 21st century!

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Suppose someone followed you and reported your driving plate to them or something like that. And that happened by different people more than once... The excuse "I couldn't hold it any longer" won't work in that case.

I understand your point Ger, but I think being followed even once is a longshot, let alone being followed by enough different people on enough different occassions to establish a pattern of behaviour.

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Farkenleaker:
There's a really old law still on the books in the UK - if you yell "Pain! Pain! Pain!" you are legally entitled to urinate in the street. If a cop is present he is obliged to shield you with his cloak.<hr></blockquote>

I had heard that if you declare "I hold!" three times, then urination is permitted - presumably this is part of the same ancient law.

SM

[westcountryboy]

I unequivocally and freely offer my services as a pee-loving trainee lawyer to take up the case of anyone who wants to take 'civil action against a local authority for "loss of dignity and reputation"'.

Unfortunately i wouldn't like to rely on ancient UK laws apparantly still on statute. Although i am intriged and will endever to research this topic. Anyone interested in this area has generally heard it is legal to shoot a welshman with a crossbow after dark within the walls of the city of Chester - look DONT do it, welcome to the world of murder and GBH.

Sorry, back to the wetting - problems of indecency come to mind, but also 'nuisence' and possibly other tortious claims if your pee interfered with another. Again I offer my services to defend anyone who gets in trouble for peeing in public.

WCB

[Anonymous]

Surely if a person makea an effort to gain cover before peeing it cannot be deemed to be illegal?

[Anonymous]

All this myth-making about 'ancient UK laws' is laughable. Why do people who know absolutely nothing about the law or UK history perpetuate such myths? It is all absolute piffle!

[Anonymous]

Not sure what the laws are regarding pants pee in my area of the USA, but if it were a crime, I'd probably be eligible for the lethal injection for all my offenses!

Sasha

[Anonymous]

"All this myth-making about 'ancient UK laws' is laughable. Why do people who know absolutely nothing about the law or UK history perpetuate such myths? It is all absolute piffle!"

Student? Student of what? And don't say "law" because if you were you should be slightly better acquainted with your subject. There are many such laws unrepealed simply because they have become irrelevant or because to do so would be an extravagant use of parliamentary time. Other examples include a statutory requirement that a hackney carriage carry two bales of hay for its horse (and the definition of "hackney carriage" is the same as that currently applied to london taxi-cabs), and one that allows the cab driver to urinate if concealed by the nearside of his vehicle. And I guess if you could find a welshman with a crossbow within the walls of the city of Chester....

Don't make assumptions about the knowledge or the background of people you can know nothing about. Mind your manners!

[westcountryboy]

Yeah, thank you Orbis

Statutes generally become redundant as new legislation is passed and parliament rarely if eveer bothers to repeal old statute, even if it is in conflict with current law...for example the ancient crossbow laws of chester are obviuosly superceded by the Offences Agaisnt the Person Act under which murder and GBH are criminal offences.

I'm sorry to just really repeat what i said earlier and i know it has nothing to do with wetting but i was particularly hacked off by the ignorance of 'student'.

WCB

[LadyP]

Hey, nice to see the old thread revived! I've found it very fascinating to see what new opinions people have about the subject. I'd love to be able to actually call a lawyer here in my state and ask his opinion, but...maybe I can call from an annonymous pay phone...

If anyone knows a lawyer here in the US that they would feel comfortable asking about it, that would be excellent! After all, all we would really want to know is what the basic "urniating in public" law is...then maybe slide in the "what about if the did it on PURPOSE" question into the discussion.

Anyone??

[Anonymous]

Once again, nice to see youre still alive, LadyP. images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I have a close friend that's a lawyer and, yes, knows about my "unique interests". I'll have to ask.

I also have an ex girlfriend that's a lawyer and knows about my "unique interests", but uh she's not talking to me. Wonder if "not talking to me" has anything to do with my telling her about my "unique interests"?

[pissfanatic]

I heard last week - on local radio (BBC Radio Bristol) that the Police in Bath were going to clamp down on public urination - at weekends (Friday to sunday). - So if you want to pee in Bath - do it during the week!!

[LadyP]

Retro, glad to know someone missed me! I'd be very curious to hear what your lawyer friend says, do let us know if you talk to him. I may try a few avenues here too when I get some time and I'll be sure to report back also.

Pissfanatic, what about peeing in THE Bath? Would that be an arrestable offense also? JK! images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

LadyP

[Anonymous]

Sorry LadyP, I've had this for a couple days now and forgot to post it. Just found it when I was cleaning my email.

Surely, forgetting about email is something you can relate to. images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Those laws are designed to prevent what is commonly referred to as "indecent exposure" (i.e. publicly displaying your dick). Since "indecent exposure" implies an "indecent" motive (such as exposing yourself to a stranger or to a child), it would not apply to pissing in public, necessitating an additional law that specifically refers to urination.

As for "on purpose", you sick fuck, how would anyone know you did it intentionally? And even if they did know, how would they know you did not have a legitimate reason to do it intentionally (such as severe pain)? How would they know the smile on your face wasnt caused by relief from the pain? Your paranoia is reaching new heights. Bottom line: I've never heard of anyone ever being arrested for pissing themselves.