High court rules man did indeed indecently expose himself

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reimposed indecent exposure charges Wednesday against a Las Vegas man who pulled down his pants and exposed his genitals in front of the Clark County Jail.

Justices reversed a lower court decision that Marty Castaneda could not be charged with indecent exposure because the state law was vague and unconstitutional.

In the decision, Justice Kris Pickering agreed with Castaneda that the state's indecent exposure law does not define "what it means to expose one's 'person' in an 'open and indecent or obscene' manner."

But she pointed out that indecent exposure has been a common law offense for time immemorial.

"The common law, as well as the case law concerning (the state indecent exposure statue), leaves no doubt that a person who intentionally exposes his genitals on a public street corner commits indecent exposure."

Pickering noted that Castaneda's argument was that he could not be guilty of indecent exposure because the law does not specify what "person" means. But she noted that in common law, "person" is a "euphemism for penis" and that it is "fair to read" that the state law prohibits the intentional exposure of one's penis in a public place.

In the decision, Pickering noted that indecent exposure laws go back to ancient times. She also said the arguments made by some that mothers who breast-feed in public should be charged with indecent exposure are fallacious.

The Nevada Legislature in 1995 passed a law that specifies that breasts are not genitals and that it is perfectly legal for mothers to breast-feed in public, Pickering noted.

With his charges reinstated, Castaneda can be charged with a gross misdemeanor.

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900.