Man Arrested For Being Naked In Own Kitchen

[wautd]

Link

An American man who brewed coffee naked in his own kitchen is facing indecent exposure charges and could be jailed.

Eric Williamson, 29, from Virginia, insists he has done nothing wrong and any exposure of his private parts was purely accidental.

Williamson was making coffee in the buff at 5.30am when a woman and her seven-year-old son walked past his kitchen window in Springfield.

The woman then called the police.

Fairfax County Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said the woman claimed Williamson then moved and exposed himself again through a large front window.

In his defence, Williamson said: "I'm by myself. So I come down here - the roommates are gone, and it's my house.

"I never had a conversation with anyone, never saw anyone. Didn't cross my mind, came and got coffee. I mean if I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen possibly it's natural. It's my kitchen."

Williamson, who is the father of a five-year-old girl, continued: "I am a loving dad. Any of my friends... and anyone knows that.

"And there is not a chance on this planet that I would ever, ever do anything like that to a kid."

Trial lawyer Dickson Young, who is not connected with the case, explained that "in order for it to be a crime, they have to prove - the state and police - have to prove that he knew those people were there when he was standing there.

"The statute requires an intentional display of your private parts. So if you are occasionally displaying them, accidentally displaying them, inadvertently displaying them it's not a crime."

Ms Jennings said the police would not pursue a case based on inadvertent exposure. The charge is a misdemeanour punishable by up to a year in jail.

What the hell? How about not peeking in someone's house in case you don't like what you see

[weemadando]

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Really, what the hell is this all about? Why the fuck would someone be so up in arms about this that they go to the police. Just knock on the door a bit later and go: "look, can you please at least keep the curtains drawn if you're going to get about nekkid."

But as DW's sig sometimes says: "My family values start in your bedroom." Because it's just unreasonable to allow people to have values other than your own.

[Bounty]

If she was so shocked about him being naked in his kitchen, why did she stick around to watch him expose himself in a different room? Moreover, what sort of kitchen window would allow you to see the private parts of someone standing in front of it?

Something reeks here. Either this is a case of a genuine perv who deliberately exposed himself - which is an actual possibility, mind - or a case of someone seeing what looked like a naked man and immediately assuming the absolute worst.

look, can you please at least keep the curtains drawn if you're going to get about nekkid

That was my first thought too. If you want to walk around your house naked, you'd think the first thing you'd do is make sure you have some pravacy.

[dragon]

Hell my wife walks around all the time nude in the house. But then here in Germany being nude is not a problem. Jeesh Americans are too uptight sometimes. Should take that women and her kid bring her here to Germany and stick her in a coed nude family orientated sauna.

[weemadando]

All they'd have to do is turn on European TV and their immediately have a terminal conniption fit. I just about lost it one night when I turned on the TV to see a naked lady presenting a program while being throroughly worked upon by a pack of geriatric men.

[Bounty]

All they'd have to do is turn on European TV and their immediately have a terminal conniption fit. I just about lost it one night when I turned on the TV to see a naked lady presenting a program while being throroughly worked upon by a pack of geriatric men.

It varies significantly from country to country, both in style and content. British channels are usually PG thanks to the watershed, Germanic countries slip in casual nudity, Italian TV is essentially 80% softcore porn.

That does not mean those attitudes necessarily translate to real life.

[salm]

Heh, under such laws i´d go to jail twice a day.

There are two majorly fucked up things here. A general one which is that it´s even possible to go to court for exposing oneself in your own damn house.
And an individual one which of course is this fucking cunt of a woman who has so much asshole in her that she´s going to call the police on some poor naked guy.

Up to one year in prison. That´s just fucked up beyond recognition.
This type of narrow mindedness makes my finger nails curl.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Heh, under such laws i´d go to jail twice a day.

There are two majorly fucked up things here. A general one which is that it´s even possible to go to court for exposing oneself in your own damn house.
And an individual one which of course is this fucking cunt of a woman who has so much asshole in her that she´s going to call the police on some poor naked guy.

Up to one year in prison. That´s just fucked up beyond recognition.
This type of narrow mindedness makes my finger nails curl.

Huh. This lady side of the article seems to imply that this guy pursued them from one window to another window and exposed himself again. Not that he was just innocently standing there.

"Fairfax County Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said the woman claimed Williamson then moved and exposed himself again through a large front window."

I think it's interesting how law enforcement operates in different locations. Had this happened where I work, and it does happen, if I don't see it then I can't cite or arrest anyone. We have the policy because it is a waste of the courts time to decide on he said she said nonsense without evidence to back it. Though, this article probably isn't sharing everything about the incident with us.

[Azazal]

Other article on this

Eric Williamson, 29, from Virginia, insists he has done nothing wrong and any exposure of his private parts was purely accidental.
Williamson was making coffee in the buff at 5.30am when a woman and her seven-year-old son walked past his kitchen window in Springfield.
The woman then called the police.
Fairfax County Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said the woman claimed Williamson then moved and exposed himself again through a large front window.
In his defence, Williamson said: "I'm by myself. So I come down here - the roommates are gone, and it's my house.
"I never had a conversation with anyone, never saw anyone. Didn't cross my mind, came and got coffee. I mean if I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen possibly it's natural. It's my kitchen."

5:30AM? what in the fuck is she doing out at 5:30 with her kid?

However, This article shows it was at 8:30 AM, but check out the 2nd to last paragraph.

SPRINGFILED, Va. - A debate continues in Northern Virginia that is bringing the issue of civil liberties to the national stage. A 29-year-old Springfield man says he was making coffee in the nude was arrested after a neighbor saw him, and on Wednesday police were back out in his neighborhood looking for others who might have seen him.

Eric Williamson, 29, is a commercial diver who grew up in Hawaii and rents home with several co-workers. Williamson told FOX 5's Will Thomas his roommates were not home and he walked into the kitchen to make coffee about 8:30 a.m. Monday.

"Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson said.

But at about 8:30 a.m. on Monday morning, a neighbor walking her son to school says he deliberately exposed himself-- not once, but twice. First, she says it happened as he was standing in the glass doorway in the kitchen, and then again at a front window.

"We've heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident," said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson.
The complaint came from an unidentified woman who was walking with a 7-year-old boy. A Fairfax County Police spokesperson said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen naked by the public.

On Wednesday, investigators told FOX 5 they have reason to believe there may have been another incident in which someone saw Williamson naked in front of his window. They're asking anyone who may have seen Williamson in the nude through his windows to come forward, even if it was at a different time.

Police are especially concerned because the house is located across the street from a bus stop for school children. So on Wednesday, officers canvassed the neighborhood with fliers, asking anyone who may have been subject to an exposure to come forward.

The department spokesperson says in a rare move, they're releasing more information about the case.

"Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house-- we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated," said Jennings.

Eric has since moved out of the rental house he shared with several diving buddies. And, by phone on Wednesday, the father of a 5-year-old girl maintained his innocence, as he did Monday in an exclusive interview with FOX 5.

"I'm a loving dad-- any of my friends would tell you that," Williamson said. "There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever do anything like that to a kid."

Police wouldn't release the incident report or the name of the mother who filed the complaint. FOX 5 has learned she is a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer.

FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m. Williamson, however, says he was drinking on Sunday night, but was not drunk on Monday morning.

[KrauserKrauser]

I would think that moving from one window to another in your own home is not exactly evidence of malicious intent to expose himself as walking around the house should be an allowed activity on your own fucking property.

This lady should be charged with whatever peeping tom legislation that is available then have that stick surgically removed from her rectum.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would think that moving from one window to another in your own home is not exactly evidence of malicious intent to expose himself as walking around the house should be an allowed activity on your own fucking property.

You would be correct. The city in this situation has a huge burden of proof that I don't see them meeting based off the little information we're given. However, I can tell you from experience that certain persons who like to expose themselves to people do make efforts to avoid being caught. Basically, I'm saying it is not out of question that he actually was doing what he is being accused of doing.

This lady should be charged with whatever peeping tom legislation that is available then have that stick surgically removed from her rectum.

From the sidewalk? You just created a situation with an even more ridiculous burden of proof than the OP. You'd have to prove that they were trying to catch a look at this man naked from the sidewalk through his open blinds with his lights on and it dark outside which happens to make things inside VERY visible.

[Darth Wong]

I can't believe there are such high penalties for "indecent exposure". Yes, it's rude and obnoxious, but the idea that someone is actually harmed by it is absurd. You could get caught on a first-offense DUI and not get anywhere near as harsh a sentence as you get for "indecent exposure". In fact, if anyone proposed such sentences for first-offense DUI, I suspect there would be outrage.

[Serafina]

Ok, the USA just gained another crazy-point...

Seriously, one year in jail?
I could understand that if he exposed himself in some dark backalley or something like that - but he was in his own house!
I mean, there was no pressure or threat involved in the whole situation - she was walking by, the worst that could happen is that she sees a nude man for what, two or three minutes?

For that, i could understand a moderate fine or something like that - but jail, a year no less? That's just insane.

[General Zod]

Ok, the USA just gained another crazy-point...

Seriously, one year in jail?
I could understand that if he exposed himself in some dark backalley or something like that - but he was in his own house!
I mean, there was no pressure or threat involved in the whole situation - she was walking by, the worst that could happen is that she sees a nude man for what, two or three minutes?

For that, i could understand a moderate fine or something like that - but jail, a year no less? That's just insane.

This isn't anything horribly new. The US has an incredibly prudish attitude when it comes to sex in general; I remember one story about a guy who was arrested for jerking off in his own house not very long ago. Some old couple noticed it through his bedroom window and kept on watching, making thorough details. Stupid shit like this is precisely why I keep my curtains shut and try living on the second floor of a building or higher.

[salm]

Heh, under such laws i´d go to jail twice a day.

There are two majorly fucked up things here. A general one which is that it´s even possible to go to court for exposing oneself in your own damn house.
And an individual one which of course is this fucking cunt of a woman who has so much asshole in her that she´s going to call the police on some poor naked guy.

Up to one year in prison. That´s just fucked up beyond recognition.
This type of narrow mindedness makes my finger nails curl.

Huh. This lady side of the article seems to imply that this guy pursued them from one window to another window and exposed himself again. Not that he was just innocently standing there.

So what? Why should that be illegal?

[Azazal]

Ok, the USA just gained another crazy-point...

Seriously, one year in jail?
I could understand that if he exposed himself in some dark backalley or something like that - but he was in his own house!
I mean, there was no pressure or threat involved in the whole situation - she was walking by, the worst that could happen is that she sees a nude man for what, two or three minutes?

For that, i could understand a moderate fine or something like that - but jail, a year no less? That's just insane.

This isn't anything horribly new. The US has an incredibly prudish attitude when it comes to sex in general; I remember one story about a guy who was arrested for jerking off in his own house not very long ago. Some old couple noticed it through his bedroom window and kept on watching, making thorough details. Stupid shit like this is precisely why I keep my curtains shut and try living on the second floor of a building or higher.

US or Canada?
R. v. Clark, 2005

Criminal law — Disorderly conduct — Indecent acts — Public place — Criminal Code prohibits wilfully doing indecent act in public place — Whether masturbating in illuminated room before uncovered window while unknowingly being observed by neighbours is indecent act in public place — Whether living room “public place” within meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of Criminal Code — Meaning of word “access” in definition of “public place” in s. 150 of Criminal Code.

The accused was observed masturbating near the uncovered window of his illuminated living room by neighbours from the privacy of their darkened bedroom, across contiguous back yards, from a distance of 90 to 150 feet. The police were summoned. They observed the accused from “just below the navel up” from the neighbour’s bedroom and “from about maybe the neck or the shoulders up” from street level. The accused was charged under ss. 173(1)(a) and 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Section 173(1) makes it an offence to wilfully do an indecent act (a) “in a public place in the presence of one or more persons”, or (b) “in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person”. The trial judge convicted the accused under s. 173(1)(a) after finding he had converted his living room into a “public place” but acquitted him under s. 173(1)(b) after finding that it did not appear the accused knew he was being watched or intended to insult or offend any person. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of British Columbia upheld the conviction. The Court of Appeal concluded that the accused had “intentionally conducted himself in an indecent way, seeking to draw the attention of others”.

Held: The appeal should be allowed. The accused’s conviction is vacated and an acquittal entered.


The facts as found by the trial judge do not support the accused’s conviction. The accused’s act was not committed in a “public place” within the meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. A “public place” is defined in s. 150 as “any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied”. “Access” means “the right or opportunity to reach or use or visit” and not the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within. Interpreting “public place” as contemplating physical as opposed to visual access renders the whole of s. 173(1) more coherent and is consistent with Parliament’s legislative distinction in the Criminal Code between conduct that is criminal because it occurs “in a public place” and conduct that is criminal because it is “exposed to public view” or “open to public view”. [11-14] [42-51]

The Court of Appeal erred by departing from the trial judge’s appreciation of the evidence in the absence of a finding that he had committed a palpable and overriding error. It also erred in finding that the conviction was supported by case law that expands the meaning of a “public place” to include the place where the witnesses to an indecent act are physically situated. Even if correctly decided, this case law does not support the conviction since the accused’s act did not occur in a public place within the expanded meaning. [9-10] [24-32]

Although the definition of “endroit public” in the French version of s. 150 contains no equivalent of the word “includes” found in the definition of “public place” in the English version, there is no need to choose between versions because both contemplate physical as opposed to visual access. [39-41]

[KrauserKrauser]

I mean I could understand it if he was like pressing up against the glass or in any way acknowledging her presence and then acting on that acknowledgement but from what I have heard and read he was simply minding his own business in the nude. Color me unsympathetic to this woman and the damage that has been done to her and her child.

[General Zod]

US or Canada?
R. v. Clark, 2005

I'm not really sure now, it might have been Canada. It was a few years ago and I don't remember all the details.

[Darth Wong]

US or Canada?
R. v. Clark, 2005

Heh. The guy was eventually acquited. I wonder what would have happened if the same case had come up in Virginia.

[Azazal]

US or Canada?
R. v. Clark, 2005

Heh. The guy was eventually acquited. I wonder what would have happened if the same case had come up in Virginia.

my guess, the guy is found guilty and has to be a registered sex offender for 10 to 20 years

[Simon_Jester]

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Really, what the hell is this all about? Why the fuck would someone be so up in arms about this that they go to the police. Just knock on the door a bit later and go: "look, can you please at least keep the curtains drawn if you're going to get about nekkid."

But as DW's sig sometimes says: "My family values start in your bedroom." Because it's just unreasonable to allow people to have values other than your own.

I can see why the lady walking her seven year old son to whereverthehell wouldn't want to go walk up to the door and confront the naked man. I mean, that actually makes sense. But I do agree that calling the police was unreasonable in context.

Hell my wife walks around all the time nude in the house. But then here in Germany being nude is not a problem. Jeesh Americans are too uptight sometimes. Should take that women and her kid bring her here to Germany and stick her in a coed nude family orientated sauna.

It's not even all of us; it's just that enough of us get freaked out that it's easier to humor them than it is to force them to submit to changing social mores. There aren't enough Americans who want to be naked to offset the people who do not want to see those people naked.

I can't believe there are such high penalties for "indecent exposure". Yes, it's rude and obnoxious, but the idea that someone is actually harmed by it is absurd. You could get caught on a first-offense DUI and not get anywhere near as harsh a sentence as you get for "indecent exposure". In fact, if anyone proposed such sentences for first-offense DUI, I suspect there would be outrage.

Maybe not. At least, not in the US; we've been getting a lot harsher on drunk driving lately. We may be puritans, but at least we aren't always stupid enough to be puritanical only about the things that are harmless while ignoring the things that are harmful.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe not. At least, not in the US; we've been getting a lot harsher on drunk driving lately. We may be puritans, but at least we aren't always stupid enough to be puritanical only about the things that are harmless while ignoring the things that are harmful.

Yes, if the drunk actually hits someone. However, harsh penalties and prison time for a first-offense DUI which doesn't injure anyone? No way that would pass.

[Molyneux]

This may be apocryphal, but...wasn't nude sunbathing in his living room a favorite pastime of Ben Franklin? I would love to get the woman's reaction if she were asked why she would want to arrest one of the Founding Fathers.

[Raw Shark]

Maybe not. At least, not in the US; we've been getting a lot harsher on drunk driving lately. We may be puritans, but at least we aren't always stupid enough to be puritanical only about the things that are harmless while ignoring the things that are harmful.

Yes, if the drunk actually hits someone. However, harsh penalties and prison time for a first-offense DUI which doesn't injure anyone? No way that would pass.

Depends on your idea of harsh penalties and whether you want the prison time to be mandatory... Here in Colorado, a first time DUI can land you behind bars for up to a year, get your license suspended (automatic for drivers under 21 with a BAC of 0.2% rather than the 0.8% required for a DUI charge) with its return conditional upon the installation and use of one of those ignition breathalyzers, and cost you almost $10,000 after the fines, fees, etc. That's for the minimum offense, without aggravating factors such as a prior DWAI or a BAC > 2%. Link. Actually hitting someone is a separate crime.

[Darth Wong]

How often does that kind of sentence actually get applied to a first-time DUI with no accident?