The Strange Case of the Naked Prosecutor:
An Ohio prosecutor has been charged with the crime of public indecency for walking around the office at night without any clothes on:
This is a really weird story, of course, but it also raises an interesting legal question: Was Blauvelt's conduct actually a crime? Let's assume Blauvelt was conscious and not having some sort of seizure that might raise voluntary act or mens rea issues. Here's what I gather is the relevant text of the Ohio public indency statute, R.C. § 2907.09(a):
We don't know a lot of the facts here, but based on the story it doesn't seem like this element has been satisfied. As best we know, the only person who saw Blauvelt was the security guard, who saw him at night via a remote security camera. If the courthouse was closed and no one else was expected to be physically nearby, I would think that the statute probably wasn't violated. The cases I found on this issue all involved places that were open to the public, such as public restrooms, open stores, public parks, open courtrooms, and the like. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 2006 WL 2709709 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 2006) (exposure to an undercover police officer in a public restroom). The cases don't require that the person actually be seen by a nearby member of the public, see State v. Henry, 783 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. 2002) (statute violated when video camera catches man masturbating in open area of public restroom, although no member of the public saw him). However, in every decision I could find the area was open to the public; the key was the good chance that someone physically nearby would see the person exposing himself. It doesn't sound like there was much of a chance of that in this case given that the building was closed.
My guess is that there is a lot going on here that hasn't been reported. But at least based on the facts as disclosed so far, and my current understanding of the law, it doesn't sound like Blauvelt violated the statute.
A top law-enforcement official in Hamilton, City Prosecutor Scott Blauvelt, is accused of "walking around the Government Services Center after business hours without clothing," the Butler County Sheriff's Office says.Why was Blauvelt walking around naked in his office at night? Well, according to his attorney, Blauvelt has medical problems; he was seriously injured in a 2005 car accident, suffers from mental illness and is on medication for seizures.
Blauvelt, 35, who was charged with two counts of public indecency, was booked into the county jail and then released. He awaits a hearing in Hamilton Municipal Court, where Blauvelt usually works, said Sheriff's Maj. Anthony Dwyer.
Calling the situation "an odd occurrence," Dwyer said investigators don't know what motivated Blauvelt to disrobe. He was alone at the time.
Mayor Don Ryan said he couldn't comment Monday, but he plans to discuss Blauvelt's employment status with Law Director Hillary Stevenson today.
Thursday night, a guard monitoring a security camera spotted a person going into an area outside the camera's range, in a tower that houses county offices, Dwyer said. "Then (the guard) sees him come back naked. ... That started the investigation."
Investigators identified the nude man as Blauvelt, Dwyer said. Blauvelt also appears naked on security-camera footage from the previous night, but in the building's other tower. That tower houses city offices, Dwyer said, including the court where Blauvelt prosecutes cases.
The charge is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, which carries a jail term of up to one month and a maximum fine of $250.
This is a really weird story, of course, but it also raises an interesting legal question: Was Blauvelt's conduct actually a crime? Let's assume Blauvelt was conscious and not having some sort of seizure that might raise voluntary act or mens rea issues. Here's what I gather is the relevant text of the Ohio public indency statute, R.C. § 2907.09(a):
No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under circumstances in which the person's conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others who are in the person's physical proximity and who are not members of the person's household . . . Expose his or her private parts.There are some interesting ambiguities in the statute, but it seems to me that the key question is whether Blauvelt was naked "under circumstances in which the person's conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others who are in the person's physical proximity."
We don't know a lot of the facts here, but based on the story it doesn't seem like this element has been satisfied. As best we know, the only person who saw Blauvelt was the security guard, who saw him at night via a remote security camera. If the courthouse was closed and no one else was expected to be physically nearby, I would think that the statute probably wasn't violated. The cases I found on this issue all involved places that were open to the public, such as public restrooms, open stores, public parks, open courtrooms, and the like. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 2006 WL 2709709 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 2006) (exposure to an undercover police officer in a public restroom). The cases don't require that the person actually be seen by a nearby member of the public, see State v. Henry, 783 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. 2002) (statute violated when video camera catches man masturbating in open area of public restroom, although no member of the public saw him). However, in every decision I could find the area was open to the public; the key was the good chance that someone physically nearby would see the person exposing himself. It doesn't sound like there was much of a chance of that in this case given that the building was closed.
My guess is that there is a lot going on here that hasn't been reported. But at least based on the facts as disclosed so far, and my current understanding of the law, it doesn't sound like Blauvelt violated the statute.
The defendant was the aptly named "Dale Limberhand."
Anyone who has worked at a firm knows that you're not clear to walk around in the buff late night for at least one reason: Cleaning staff.
I would suspect that gov't offices also have cleaning staff.
Likewise, if there is security at night, the guards may make rounds to check "things" out.
They do, but in the government places I’ve worked, the cleaning staff works during the day. I think they do this to save money. The government managers don’t seem to care if the cleaning staff interrupts you when you work. There are even strict rule over how heavy you trash can get. If you throw away some thick paper documents they won’t empty the can. Many is the time I had to bring my own trash to the dumpster.
Unfortunately these are times of increasing surveillance and decreasing tolerance for out-of-the-mainstream sexual behaviour.
The media salivate over such stories and the moralists emerge to bring merciless judgement. As a result simply being turned on by streaking in an empty building, no harm intended, is being treated as a criminal offense.
In my opinion this event should have been treated as a non-event. A private caution by the man's boss should have sufficed.
For Heaven's sakes, let's show some compassion and understanding for others' faults, some day one of ours may be judged harshly.
The prosecutor's office also needs to think carefully about what he can still do for the office. This incident could be devasting for a trial prosecutor. At least one jury on every panel is bound to know about this.
If he was hot, the security guard would have just enjoyed the show instead of reporting it.
Huh?
Side comment: that's the building where we got our marriage license. Ew.
But if I had to guess: Mr. Blauvelt will probably be permitted to plead no contest to a minor misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.
Disclosure: I'm a criminal defense attorney in Cincinnati, just down the road from Hamilton. But my knowledge of the case is limited to what's been in published news reports.
The claim is verifiable--were there noticable changes in behavior and judgment after the accident? At a minimum, the claim is plausible and cannot reasonably be dismissed out of hand.
The real tragedy of the ciminal justice system is not how many people try to fake mental illness to get a benefit (very, very, very few, possibly in part because there is rarely any "benefit" to having a mental illness). The real tragedy is how many people with treatable mental illnesses just get shuffled in and out of the system with no real care.
If the head injury caused this prosecutor's judgment lapse, then I hope he gets the treatment he needs.
And maybe this incident can teach his colleagues a little compassion.
I would go farther and say that it may not be a matter of the head injury causing "judgment" problems. It is possible that the prosecutor's actions were entirely unconscious.