cDiver.net
The Commercial Diver Network
Diver Guilty of Indecent Exposure
Man convicted of in-home indecent exposure
2 women say they saw him naked from windows of his Virginia home
From AP
FAIRFAX, Va. - As Erick Williamson sees it, being naked is liberating, and if passers-by get an eyeful while he's standing in front of a picture window, that's not his problem.
A Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions about what's OK when you're in your own home.
Two women said they saw much more of Williamson than they cared to in October, even though he never left the confines of his home. He received neither jail time nor a fine but is appealing anyway, saying a larger principle is at stake.
something like this is outrageous," Williamson said after he was convicted and sentenced. "I feel like I'm living in a fishbowl."
Williamson testified that he never intended to expose himself and was simply exercising "personal freedom" as he spent several hours naked in his Springfield home packing up belongings.
Police, prosecutors and two witnesses, though, said Williamson's actions were designed to draw attention to himself.
The first woman, school librarian Joyce Giuliani, said she heard some loud singing as she left her home and drove to work. As she drove by Williamson's home, she saw him naked, standing directly behind a large picture window.
'Eye contact'
A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.
She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw Williamson standing naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.
"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no gestures toward her or her son.
As she turned the corner, she looked back at the home, in disbelief at what she had just seen. Again, she saw Williamson, naked in the same picture window.
One of Williamson's housemates testified that Williamson had been nude well before dawn. Timothy Baclit testified that he woke up around 5 a.m. to go to work and found saw Williamson walking around "naked ... with a hard hat."
He said he warned Williamson that he would be visible to passers-by but that Williamson did not respond.
Williamson, 29, said the conversation with Baclit never occurred and that he never noticed that two women had seen him. He said "it did not occur to me" that people outside the home might see him naked.
'No one deserves to see it'
Regardless of whether he was seen, Williamson's conduct does not constitute indecent exposure, said his attorney, D***son Young.
Under Virginia law, the charge requires "an obscene display or exposure" and must occur in "a public place or a place where others are present."
Young argued that neither prong had been met.
"Mere nudity is insufficient to declare conduct obscene," Young said, noting that none of the women testified that Williamson was aroused or that he made any sort of obscene gesture. "Nudity in one's own home is not a crime."
Fairfax County Prosecutor Marc Birnbaum said the witness testimony shows that he intended to expose himself to the women by making himself visible for extended periods of time and drawing attention to himself by making rattling noises and singing.
"No one deserves to see it, certainly not a young child," Birnbaum said.
Click for related content
For more U.S. news, click here
Birnbaum sought jail time for Williamson, but General District Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty imposed only a suspended sentence, meaning that Williamson will serve no jail time if he keeps out of trouble.
If Williamson follows through on his plans to appeal, though, a circuit court judge could impose a stiffer punishment, technically up to a year in jail.
Williamson's Oct. 24 arrest received national attention and spurred debate about the boundaries of acceptable nudity.
Debate rages on
Kent Willis, director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said there is no line that defines what is acceptable in these types of cases.
"How you define public and private space depends on the behavior that's taking place," Willis said. He said that if the case is pursued through appellate courts, it could potentially provide more clarity on what constitutes indecent exposure in Virginia.
Williamson, a commercial diver who has since moved out of Fairfax County, said he was shocked by the verdict. He suggested after the hearing that he was the victim of a double standard.
"If I was looking in her window, I think we'd be having a wh*** different conversation," he said.
2 women say they saw him naked from windows of his Virginia home
From AP
FAIRFAX, Va. - As Erick Williamson sees it, being naked is liberating, and if passers-by get an eyeful while he's standing in front of a picture window, that's not his problem.
A Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions about what's OK when you're in your own home.
Two women said they saw much more of Williamson than they cared to in October, even though he never left the confines of his home. He received neither jail time nor a fine but is appealing anyway, saying a larger principle is at stake.
something like this is outrageous," Williamson said after he was convicted and sentenced. "I feel like I'm living in a fishbowl."
Williamson testified that he never intended to expose himself and was simply exercising "personal freedom" as he spent several hours naked in his Springfield home packing up belongings.
Police, prosecutors and two witnesses, though, said Williamson's actions were designed to draw attention to himself.
The first woman, school librarian Joyce Giuliani, said she heard some loud singing as she left her home and drove to work. As she drove by Williamson's home, she saw him naked, standing directly behind a large picture window.
'Eye contact'
A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.
She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw Williamson standing naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.
"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no gestures toward her or her son.
As she turned the corner, she looked back at the home, in disbelief at what she had just seen. Again, she saw Williamson, naked in the same picture window.
One of Williamson's housemates testified that Williamson had been nude well before dawn. Timothy Baclit testified that he woke up around 5 a.m. to go to work and found saw Williamson walking around "naked ... with a hard hat."
He said he warned Williamson that he would be visible to passers-by but that Williamson did not respond.
Williamson, 29, said the conversation with Baclit never occurred and that he never noticed that two women had seen him. He said "it did not occur to me" that people outside the home might see him naked.
'No one deserves to see it'
Regardless of whether he was seen, Williamson's conduct does not constitute indecent exposure, said his attorney, D***son Young.
Under Virginia law, the charge requires "an obscene display or exposure" and must occur in "a public place or a place where others are present."
Young argued that neither prong had been met.
"Mere nudity is insufficient to declare conduct obscene," Young said, noting that none of the women testified that Williamson was aroused or that he made any sort of obscene gesture. "Nudity in one's own home is not a crime."
Fairfax County Prosecutor Marc Birnbaum said the witness testimony shows that he intended to expose himself to the women by making himself visible for extended periods of time and drawing attention to himself by making rattling noises and singing.
"No one deserves to see it, certainly not a young child," Birnbaum said.
Click for related content
For more U.S. news, click here
Birnbaum sought jail time for Williamson, but General District Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty imposed only a suspended sentence, meaning that Williamson will serve no jail time if he keeps out of trouble.
If Williamson follows through on his plans to appeal, though, a circuit court judge could impose a stiffer punishment, technically up to a year in jail.
Williamson's Oct. 24 arrest received national attention and spurred debate about the boundaries of acceptable nudity.
Debate rages on
Kent Willis, director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said there is no line that defines what is acceptable in these types of cases.
"How you define public and private space depends on the behavior that's taking place," Willis said. He said that if the case is pursued through appellate courts, it could potentially provide more clarity on what constitutes indecent exposure in Virginia.
Williamson, a commercial diver who has since moved out of Fairfax County, said he was shocked by the verdict. He suggested after the hearing that he was the victim of a double standard.
"If I was looking in her window, I think we'd be having a wh*** different conversation," he said.
Views: 225
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dive Diva on
-
The DA and Police were pushing for a max sentence on conviction, one year in jail. The judge gave the guy a suspended sentence, no jail time, no fine. It didn't state whether he'd have to register as a convicted sex offender. Bottom line is some attorney out there is going to push this to the U.S. Supreme Court if possible and make a name for himself on this poor guy's dime.
I think that the Circuit Court judge was looking for a way to put this mess to rest with as little fanfare as possible, given the media following of this case. Unfortunately the Fairfax DA and the Police Chief seen to lack foresight and/or common sense or they would have foreseen what a can of worms this case was going to turn into.
The question on appeal is going to be was this guy's constitutional rights under the 1st amendment violated? Does a person have the right to run about naked in their own home? How much effort has to go into the being visible to others action to constitute indecent behavior? What constitutes an obscene display vs. nudity?
These are certainly points of law that the highest courts in the land need to be mired in. How much of the Fairfax citizens tax dollars is the City of Fairfax willing to spend prosecuting this case I wonder.
-
Permalink Reply by Ethan on
-
§ 21.08 INDECENT EXPOSURE. *according to Texas*
(a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.
� 18.2-387. Indecent exposure. *according to state of VA*
Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. No person shall be deemed to be in violation of this section for breastfeeding a child in any public place or any place where others are present
Its pretty much going to boil down to wheather or not the court can show and prove INTENT. Every states' law I've looked at has Intent as a requirement to be guilty of this offense. If you read how the two laws above are written Mr Williamson's behavior and the cerc**stances fit every requirement EXCEPT for intent.
He comes closest to breaking the law under VA's definition due to the fact that it states, "...or in any place where others are present,". This means he does not have to be in a public place. Just a place where others are present. And standing in your window with someone right out in the lawn could be viewd as being someplace where someone else is present. However that still does not show Intent. And you must either break the law or not break the law. You cant just chip the law or crack the law. To break the law you must meet all the conditions set forth.
Did he show his genetals? YES
Was he reckless about who could see him? YES
Was his intent to sexually gratify himself or others? He says no.
Did make an obscene display? Debatalbe.
The burden of proof is on the Prosicution. Best of luck to Mr Williomson!!!
-
-
Here's a few more antiquated and sexist laws that are still on the books:
In Florida its against the law to shower naked.
In Arkansas a man can beat his wife but only once a month.
In Louisiana it's illegal to be an alcholic.
In Montana its a felony for a wife to open her husband's mail.
In North Carolina women must be have their bodies covered by at least 16 yards of material at all times.
In Ohio its illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
In Ohio it's illegal for a woman to strip off her clothing while in front of a picture of a man.
In Oregon no man can curse while having sex with his wife.
In Pennsylvannia it's illegal for men to purchase alcohol without written consent from their wives.
In Tennesseee it's illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
In Virginia its against the law for unmarried persons to have sex. It's also illegal in VA to tickle women.
In Wisconsin it is illegal for a woman to walk down the street at night unless accompanied by a man.
In Wyoming it's illegal for a woman to stand closer to the bar than 5 feet while drinking. It's also illegal to tickle a woman in Wy.
-
-
care to show your references or are these just from an online list of nonsense? :) Because law lists like this are usually either made up or made of old "laws" that were actually just city ordinances, such as "the rule of thumb"
-
-
Two sites you'll find highly entertaining are:
http://www.dumblaws.com/
http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/poll/
-
-
Why you would post the laws of Texas in regard to a VA case is unknown as one has nothing to do with the other.
Regarding the VA case the prosecution has already proven their case hence the reason for the guilty verdict on a class 1 misdemmeanor charge. The appeal will be based on a question of constitutional law asking the higher court to reverse or remand the lower court and possibly to clarify or interpert a vague point of law. The appellate court deals with questions of law or matters where one side believes that the lower court erred in their ruling. The appellate court does not retry the case.
As to your qoute "...or in any place where others are present," does not make him guilty. One presumes to have a certain amount of privacy in one's own home. Especially when the windows are curtained and there are hedges in front of the windows further blocking the view in or out.
If one is in one's own home then that does not mean that people walking by outside your home constitute being "present" especially if they are trespassing on your property and take the added step to walk up to and peer into your window to improve their view.
Furthermore there are degrees of culpablity within the law, think about liability issues, so your statement about chipping or cracking the law is also in error.
So Ethan might I suggest two things to you 1) before you start trying to define the law, dispensing it or attempt to interpert it, go to school and learn it first. 2) Learn all the facts before formulating an opinion.
Oh and spell check your post, lol ~ Diva
-
-
Hi Dive Diva :) I put Texas law next to the VA law as a reference to support what the Federal Supreme Court might rule in this instance... it was to show that there is a universal consenses as to what "indecent exposure" is and is not. And I didnt say that he was guilty because he was in a place where others were present. I said that point alone did not meet the requirements of the law. When reading a penal code you can not assume or fill in what isnt in ink. You can only inturpret what is actually there. What I was showing is that "having intent to be obscene and show one's private parts" is the requirement for being guilty of indecent exposure. We know that because it says that in ink on the page. And as far as telling me to get an education before posting, well, in school they teach you to reference your work so maybe you can get those references to your list of laws? Dive safe Diva :)
And as for your comments on "cracking the law" there is actually only one or two crimes that can be "almost done" and still be a crime, and that is Attempted Murder and Attempted Kidnapping *this usually falls to an assault charge of some form*. You can not be convicted of "attempted indecent exposure" or "attempted jay walking" or "attempted manslaughter" or "attempted possesion of a drug". And you cant arrest someone with an unlit match and convict them of arson. They gotta catch something on fire first. Every crime must be committed in accordance as is defined by the law otherwise you havent actually broken the law.
-
Permalink Reply by frank hite on
-
Mr, sounds like your a want to be lawyer, what the hell you doin on this site?
-
-
Dallas woman fuming over smoking neighbor at complex
01:46 PM CDT on Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By SCOTT FARWELL / The Dallas Morning News
sfarwell@dallasnews.com
In an age when smoking has been outlawed in most public places – government buildings, bars and pool halls – a person's home is one of the few places you can puff in peace.
Until now.
A Dallas woman has filed a lawsuit seeking six figures from a former neighbor and landlord for damage she says was caused by cigarette smoke wafting through adjoining walls of her high-end townhome.
"Smoking is not a right, it's a privilege," said Chris Daniel, a retired nurse. "I'm sorry that people smoke. I think it's foolish, but when it comes into my house and hurts my health and my daughter's health and our belongings, it's a different issue."
The case is being watched by townhouse industry groups across the area.
A manager and attorney for Estancia Townhomes, a 52-building community near Prestonwood Country Club in North Dallas, said it's unlikely the Daniels sustained any smoke damage. There is a solid, two-hour fire wall from the foundation to the roof between each of the homes.
And even if some smell did seep through, the Daniels renewed their lease at Estancia – where smoking is permitted – six months after they say the problem began.
"Why do people file lawsuits?" asked Ginger Tye, an attorney representing the property managers and owners. "They're asking for money damages."
The next-door smoker, Rebecca Williams, declined comment.
Chris Daniel and her daughter, Cary, say in the lawsuit that a construction defect is allowing smoke to migrate between the units.
After a year of stinging eyes, breathing difficulty and sinus pain, they moved out of Estancia and into the Homewood Suites in Addison. Last week, movers wearing surgical masks loaded trucks with their belongings.
The Daniels said furniture will need to be reupholstered, artwork restored and closets full of clothing dry cleaned. The bills are still piling up.
"There's nothing in our home that was ready made. I picked out fabrics, everything was custom made and everything was spotless," said Chris Daniel.
"It's not like our worldly goods are the most important things in our life, but you know what? I don't expect them to be damaged."
Some multifamily communities have followed the lead of hotels and car-rental companies – designating nonsmoking rooms or buildings. The Glass House, a 21-story high-rise in Dallas' Uptown, markets itself as a smoke-free property.
Unfamiliar territory
Kathy Carlton, director of government affairs for the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas, said she's never heard of a case such as the one filed by the Daniels.
She said most people who are highly sensitive to cigarette smoke don't move into a community or a building where it's allowed.
"Generally, this stuff is the property owners' prerogative, and people either live by the rules or move on down the street," Carlton said.
"If you have a pet, you look for a place that takes pets. If you hate pets, you look for a place that doesn't allow them. People have choices."
The Daniels said the freedom to choose cuts both ways.
Yes, people may be entitled to smoke in their home – but others are equally entitled to live in a clean and healthy environment.
The right to swing your fist, they said, ends when it meets my nose.
"This lease says I have a right to a habitable place, this lease says I have a right to quiet enjoyment, this lease says I have a right to safe living," said Chris Daniel, referring to court doc**ents.
"And I did have that ... until someone moved in who did not care about her neighbor."
The Daniels lived at Estancia for four years. Today, after a final walkthrough of their home with an attorney and managers, they will hand over the keys.
Nicole Lott, property director at Estancia, said it's been a long year of acrimony.
Managers replaced air filters repeatedly, installed sealant-type electrical plates and – at the Daniels' request – used an industrial-grade roofing sealant to caulk pipes under their kitchen cabinet.
When that didn't work, managers tried to negotiate a move for both tenants within the community.
Restraining order
Williams, the smoker, finally moved to another unit in June after a judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding her from lighting up in her home.
"We've done more for these people than we've ever done for anyone else," Lott said. "I don't think it's possible to satisfy them."
Chris Daniel also filed a complaint under the Texas Fair Housing Act, alleging that her sensitivity to cigarette smoke qualifies her for protection set aside for people with disabilities.
The complaint is being reviewed by Dallas' Fair Housing Office.
First Assistant City Attorney Chris Bowers said a garden-variety reaction to cigarette smoke – puffy eyes, runny nose, coughing – would probably not meet the standard set by the law, a severe limitation of a major life activity.
"Not just anybody will be able to say smoking has that effect, and that's one of the things our Fair Housing Office will investigate," he said.
"It's safe to say most people do not suffer the degree of impairment this person alleges from cigarette smoke."
Chris Daniel has been treated by an allergist and an internist, according to court records, and was prescribed two inhalers.
Dr. Barbara Stark Baxter, a clinical associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, wrote that Daniels "qualifies as disabled under the Texas Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Her attorney, John Clark Long V, said his clients were essentially driven from their home by cigarette smoke.
He illustrated the case this way:
"It was like living life in an ashtray you can never clean."
AT A GLANCE: WHAT THEY SAID
The plaintiff
Cigarette smoke from a next-door townhome prevented her from breathing and ruined a life's worth of belongings.
The defendants
Smoking is not prohibited in the complex, and construction standards prevent the migration of smoke from one unit to another.
The Dallas city attorney's office
The complaint is under review by the city's Fair Housing Office. To qualify for protection, the cigarette smoke would have to impair a major life function – such as breathing.
The physician
The plaintiff qualifies as disabled under the Texas Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Apartment Association of Greater Dallas
Rules regarding smoking are the prerogative of individual property owners and managers.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
When stuff like this happens in TX (even if it is Dallas) we all are screwed by the scams. Oddly I crave a cigar now... LOL
-
-
Permalink Reply by A.. Parnell on
-
Your so stupid its Virginia not Texas dumbness there you go again, your mouth is for eating only your not a diver and surely not a lawyer.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Adam Broetje.
Powered by
