Family Watchdog Issue 2 Claims:

Peeing in public

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 39) At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;

Family Watchdog's Conclusion (Response)

This is one of the biggest sex offender myths propagated by registry opponents. There are no more than 463 offenders in a population of over 150,000 that could possibly have been convicted of peeing in public.

Background

There is not a single state that requires a conviction and registration for peeing in public. These states have laws against exposing one’s genitalia to the view of a minor or another person who may be offended. If you are peeing into a bush and no one can see your genitalia, there is no crime and no requirement for registration.

Below are the 13 states referenced in the HRW study. We have included the total number of offenders registered by state for a single conviction for Indecent Exposure (or Public Indecency): State Count
AZ 0
CA 0
CT 0 *
ID 6
GA 21
KY 0
MA 0
MI 0 **
NH 0
OK 433 ***
SC 0
UT 3
VT 0

Even if all 463 offenders were convicted of peeing in public (statistical probability 0%), this would only account for less than 0.1% of all offenders.

* CT law does not make simple Public Indecency a registerable offense
http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title53a/sec53a-186.html

** Michigan requires a second conviction of Indecent Exposure that includes fondling under Section 335 to be a registerable offense.
(http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-722)
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-335a

*** A statistically significant sample of 50 of the 433 Oklahoma offenders convicted of a single count of Indecent Exposure exposed the following:

8 not found in DOC records
8 sentences suspended
12 incarcerated
22 were sentenced to probation (between 4 and 20 years)

It is highly unlikely that an offender convicted of peeing in public would be sentenced to probation or incarceration.

The Following by eAdvocate:

I love this FW statement "This is one of the biggest sex offender myths propagated by registry opponents. There are no more than 463 offenders in a population of over 150,000 that could possibly have been convicted of peeing in public."

First they say it is a myth, then they say some could be convicted of the myth. I guess calling it a myth is not truthful? OK, let the truth be known, HRW actually said:

At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two
limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;109

109 Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination—two if exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code §314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-186, §54-250, §54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. §42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. §18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.148, §17.520, 500, §510.150; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §16, ALM GL ch. 6 §178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §167(1)(f), .. §28.722, 723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. §582.21, §1021; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. §77-27-21.5, §76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, §2601, §5407, 5401.

It appears FW has misquoted HRW and totally ignored the statutes cited, a review of the Michigan links will support the HRW cites. SOmeone at FW needs to learn how to read. Maybe the following news articles will be understood by FW:


Lawmaker: peeing in public exposes a flaw in the law
9-30-2007 New Hampshire:

CONCORD, N.H. --A New Hampshire lawmaker says peeing in public exposes a flaw in the law.

Strange as it sounds, Democratic Rep. Stephen Shurtleff says making public urination a separate crime could really help people out.

Currently, there is no state law specifically addressing public urination; it's prosecuted under a patchwork of local and state laws, indecent exposure among them.

Shurtleff says because indecent exposure is a sex offense, multiple convictions could land habitual public urinators on a sex offender registry, a penalty he feels is too severe for the crime.

"I think some of the stigma attached to that is greater than the offense," he said. "It's public urination and they should be charged with it."

A member of the House Judiciary Committee, Shurtleff, of Concord, is working to rewrite New Hampshire's sex offender laws to comply with new federal law. Under federal law, those convicted of indecent exposure twice in three years would be forced to register as sex offenders.

Shurtleff said in the upcoming legislative session he will push for a law making public urination a misdemeanor. ..more.. by AP



Public urination can require sex offender registration!
5-28-2004 Michigan:
According to Michigan State Police Sgt. Troy Fellows, urinating in public is classified as indecent exposure, and requires sex offender registration after three convictions. Fellows said, however, judges have leeway to order registration after any number of convictions, providing the individual was convicted under state law.

State Police Sex Offender Registration Analyst Charlotte Marshall said county sheriff deputies, city and township police officers typically will not charge individuals under the state law. She said those officers generally charge people under a local ordinance, and if convicted, penalties outlined in the ordinance apply. ..Source.. Oceana's Herald Journal



MIDDAY UPDATE: MSU officials propose public urination ban
2-1-2005 Michigan:

University officials are aiming to lessen the punishment that comes with urinating in public by proposing an ordinance that bans it.

The ban would bring the offense under a local ordinance specifically related to public urination. Currently, a state law places the act under disorderly conduct.

A third violation of the state law would place an individual on the state's public sex offender list.

"This is a clear-cut need to do," MSU spokesman Terry Denbow said. "It's a recognition that without it, people would unfairly be on that list."

The ordinance was proposed along with a ban on open alcohol at the Jan. 14 meeting of the MSU Board of Trustees. The board intends to vote on the proposal on Feb. 11. ..source.. by Lindsay Vanhulle, The State News


Family Watchdog!