Seattle Attorney sums up our local law

[Greenbare Woods]

In our corner of the Pacific Northwest, being publicly topless or nude by itself is not illegal.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/topless-in-seattle-a-law-firm-partner-gets-over-her-fear-of-public-nudity/

I read this published story about a Seattle lawyer's first visit to a CO beach.  Since I live in the same legal jurisdiction her casual summation of our law on public nudity by itself applies to most of my own naked adventures.   Of course there are many police who don't know and don't care about the law that we still have to worry about.

If only we could rely on police obeying the law.....   

[eyesup]

Bob, just to clarify,

However, the legality of public nudity is probably irrelevant to those who frequent our city’s nude beaches, affectionately and informally known and “Naughty Beach 1” and “Naughty Beach 2” (collectively, “Naughty Beach”).

Are these beaches public or private? Available to anyone?

My wife travels to Seattle occasionally on business and I sometimes I will meet her in different cities and after business is done, we will do some exploring. Just wondering where the public nude beaches are and does the law allow the beach goers free reign.

Duane

[Greenbare Woods]

Bob, just to clarify,

However, the legality of public nudity is probably irrelevant to those who frequent our city’s nude beaches, affectionately and informally known and “Naughty Beach 1” and “Naughty Beach 2” (collectively, “Naughty Beach”).

Are these beaches public or private? Available to anyone?

My wife travels to Seattle occasionally on business and I sometimes I will meet her in different cities and after business is done, we will do some exploring. Just wondering where the public nude beaches are and does the law allow the beach goers free reign.

Duane

As quoted above, "In our corner of the Pacific Northwest, being publicly topless or nude by itself is not illegal."   So the law allows public nudity.  It prohibits being naked while acting in a manner intended to cause someone else alarm or affront.  That makes it clear as mud, but they have to prove INTENT to get a conviction.  They may try to construe intent if someone is naked where naked is not common or doesn't have another intent such as WNBR or the Freemont Street Fair. 

Seattle must have close to 100 miles of waterfront.  There are several public beaches where nudity is common enough that INTENT to cause alarm or affront would be difficult to allege.  I read about them occasionally but I don't' actually get over to Seattle often enough to know where they are exactly.   

[John P]

The law as listed on the Naturist Action Committee page isn't so optimistic. It says:

WASHINGTON RCW 9A.88.010  Indecent exposure. A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.

I don't know where "acting in a manner intended to cause someone else alarm or affront" comes from--if this is the law that applies (could there be more than one?) then there has to be "intentional exposure", but the potential affront or alarm only has to be a "likely" result. In other words, as I read this, it seems that if you're deliberately nude, you have to worry about whether you're likely to offend someone.

But then, what should save us is that the exposure has to be "open and obscene". Open is fine, we're not hiding, but we can deny being "obscene", and in recent years, state courts have tended to define non-sexual nudity as not being obscene.  I think that's the defense that naturists ought to be prepared to make--that a person was openly nude, and someone may have been offended (and it might help if we politely express regret that they felt that way) but the incident wasn't legally "obscene" and so there's no crime involved.

The NAC listing ends with the ominous words "NOTE: The state of Washington has used RCW 9A.88.010 to arrest and prosecute persons for nude sunbathing." So you have to take some notice of it.

http://naturistaction.org/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/Washington_Laws/body_washington_laws.html

[Greenbare Woods]

The law as listed on the Naturist Action Committee page isn't so optimistic. It says:

WASHINGTON RCW 9A.88.010  Indecent exposure. A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.

I don't know where "acting in a manner intended to cause someone else alarm or affront" comes from--if this is the law that applies

The laws in Washington State are not the same as in Massachusetts, and neither are our courts.  Here in Washington State a person has to intentionally make an obscene exposure.  Just being seen while human is not an "obscene" exposure in court decisions.  It has to be intentionally obscene, and the prosecution has to be able to show intent.  The accused also has to KNOW that their exposure was likely to cause alarm or affront.  Taken together courts have found that going about your daily life and minding your own business while naked is not INTENTIONALLY obscene, and going naked in a parade through Seattle is not knowingly likely to cause someone to be alarmed.  Both Intentionally obscene and Knowing to be likely have to be demonstrated by prosecution before naked it can be criminal.

A few years ago the Seattle police arrested two naked men at the WNBR.  Charges were dropped and the police were told not to do it again.  They haven't.   They also don't arrest beach people at several beaches in Seattle.  Naked Gardening Day began in a Seattle suburb, and now many Seattle people garden naked.    Gardening while human is not intentionally obscene.

The NAC page gives statutes, but not court cases or practices.  It really needs to be updated with court decisions and better advice.   

Its pretty much what the Seattle Attorney wrote in the above quoted article, "In our corner of the Pacific Northwest, being publicly topless or nude by itself is not illegal."  That article was from a LAWYER web site called "Above the Law."  My guess is that its more informative and current than the limited NAC information.

Thank you for your comment though.  The statutes need to be more clear. 

[jbeegoode]

The NAC is talking state authorities misusing the law, and doesn't mention convictions, just prosecution. Could the lawyer/author just be addressing Seattle and local authorities take on the "mud" in what is pertaining to her circumstance locally? Are we back to the interpretation of the state statute by the ignorant cop, or local prosecutor, which might vary, cause trouble and nobody is sure what might happen? You only truly know after court and several thousand dollars expenses. Defense expense might as well be a stiff fine, a fine even though a law wasn't broken.

I slipped on the pants. I could have just covered up, throwing them on my crotch, technically. I think that things would not have been a warning and so much nice, had I decided on the latter. It gets down to, "Do I want to provoke, open myself up to a hassle?"

There are people among us who still respect the law. I respect peace, freedom and justice, something that so much of law and its enforcement no longer understands. We are left with anxiety and fear. We don't have definition, or clear consequence, or if we are breaking a law or not. It might as well be the kings men making things up as they go along with no input from the governed. Peace, freedom and justice is an illusion. Politicians, politicians in robes and police abuse of power are the reality. These ills go further than just the issue of simply not wearing clothing.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

There are people among us who still respect the law. I respect peace, freedom and justice, something that so much of law and its enforcement no longer understands. We are left with anxiety and fear. We don't have definition, or clear consequence, or if we are breaking a law or not. It might as well be the kings men making things up as they go along with no input from the governed. Peace, freedom and justice is an illusion. Politicians, politicians in robes and police abuse of power are the reality. These ills go further than just the issue of simply not wearing clothing.
Jbee

There was a court case a few years ago.  I don't remember all the details any more. Sears corporation was fined for doing something illegal with government contracting. 

Sears took the fine to court saying that their behavior and action was REQUIRED BY LAW. The US supreme court finally ruled that contradictory law is not a legal excuse.  A corporation and citizen are required to obey both, even when one law prohibits obeying the other. 

Yes. Lieyers are that evil.  I lose my respect for "law and order." 

Bob

[John P]

Making judgments based on things you can't remember has obvious perils!

The NAC says that the Washington authorities have used the indecent exposure law to "arrest and prosecute persons for nude sunbathing", but as JBG pointed out, the site doesn't say that anyone was convicted. I wish there could be more information about who was indicted, for what, and how the cases turned out, but the NAC may think that anything beyond a bare statement of the law would be getting too close to providing legal advice. Still, court cases are a public record and the reports are often available online. Maybe someone other than the NAC could find them.

A quick search turned up this, from the city of Seattle, no less:
http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2008/11/14/is-nudity-illegal/

I see that the city's statement does quote the "open and obscene exposure" wording and says "there must be lewd or obscene behavior" but doesn't get into the issue of what that is.

[Greenbare Woods]

Thank you for the link to the Seattle City government page. 

there must be lewd or obscene behavior for an officer to take action. In order for the police to make an arrest, we must have witnesses currently in the public place where the nudity is occurring who must make a complaint.

the burden is on the government to prove that the offender was knowingly aware that their conduct created alarm and offense of others

Historically, it has been difficult in Seattle to prosecute cases of public nudity. The position of the police department is to take a report upon receiving a complaint, identify the individual involved, and forward the complaint to the City Attorney.

From the City of Seattle web page linked above.  My emphasis.

Seattle operates under the same state law that is applicable here.  Their juries may be more liberal.  They have to prove lewd or obscene behavior.  Minding your own business such as gardening or driving is not it.  They have to show deliberate sexual behavior.  And they have to show that the deliberate sexual behavior was done where the person KNEW that someone else would watch AND be offended.  And after all that, they have to find someone who will go to court which means the witness who complained has to be very offended. 

It comes down to the police may harass someone for being naked, take your name, etc., but won't arrest you for being naked.  Mostly they won't bother unless some pervert is masturbating in front of an elementary school or F'ing in the park.  Just being naked is not a crime and the courts have become consistent. 

I really wish NAC would be more proactive with what we CAN DO and where.  Just citing the statute is confusing at best and misinformation at worst.  Lawyers and court enforcement is what is really the law from place to place.

Bob

[jbeegoode]

In the future, I may spend a summer in Washington, camping and soaking in hot springs...naked.

The point that John P. makes about NAC's care to not give legal advice is something that I had forgotten. The law ties their hand behind their back, so we don't know what is legal and what is not. As you say Bob, we then have to obey both laws. We must obey the ones that we don't know because there are others which make us ignorant. We must obey those that make everyone ignorant, controversial, conflicting, the governed and the governing. I sometimes feel that I am being trapped coming and going and can't move, trapped in fear. So, I sneak around like a gutter rat trying to mind my own business, alone or with others who I discover that are like me.
Jbee

[John P]

My point about the NAC was that if they do more than just state the laws, they'd be getting into an area where they'd be presenting information on which people might act. It seems obvious to me that the law in Washington isn't entirely clear--that issue of what's "obscene" being the main problem--and once you start trying to clarify that, you're telling people that the law will predictably be interpreted one way or another, and someone could rely on that and perhaps get into trouble, and then they'd blame the NAC for directing them wrongly. Or maybe the fault would be theirs, that they'd misunderstand what the NAC site said, but the result would be the same--they'd blame the NAC.

If you hire an attorney you're getting (at best!) no more than a professional who has some knowledge and skill in interpreting the law. But even then, the court might see it differently, and you'll lose. You're not doing any more than paying for a hired gun, but at least you'd have someone who's meant to work on your behalf. For the NAC to do the same via a website would obviously lead to trouble.

Bob has a good point about local juries versus what happens in Seattle, because it might seem to local police/prosecutors/juries that they get to decide the law in their own area, regardless of what they say in the city. Maybe an appeals court would overrule a verdict that didn't match current thinking (in fact they should be making sure that the law functions the same way all over the state) but even if that succeeds, it's more money spent by the defendant.

[Greenbare Woods]

Bob has a good point about local juries versus what happens in Seattle, because it might seem to local police/prosecutors/juries that they get to decide the law in their own area, regardless of what they say in the city. Maybe an appeals court would overrule a verdict that didn't match current thinking (in fact they should be making sure that the law functions the same way all over the state) but even if that succeeds, it's more money spent by the defendant.

Police mostly rule by fear and violence, not by rule of law.   They intimidate people, arrest and release people without charges, and sometimes cost people a lot of money to defend ourselves.  Fear, violence, intimidation, and costs are what rules people.  Law is only barely relevant.

Seattle people have dared to push the law and the police now have learned (as cited above). 

Bob
 

[jbeegoode]

To Protect and to Serve, used to be on the sides of the well marked Pima County Sheriff's cars.
Jbee

[eyesup]

JohnP, I agree. The crux is always how to prove intent.

If I believe that I am not being obscene, how can I be held liable for the violation of the beliefs of those I don’t’ know or are even aware that they exist? It might prove to be an interesting defense. Although the old saw of “ignorance of the law is no defense” still hold true.

The law is getting too complicated without being forced to hire a lawyer. Hmmmm ?

Duane

[JOhnGw]

It's probably already too complex for most lawyers, unfortunately.