Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipZap
Indecent exposure laws apply to folks doing the nasty in public. Here's a quote from the story:
"According to the incident report, when the officer looked through the windows of the training room, he reported he saw the man sitting in a chair, and the other person performing oral sex on him."
Is this public? Is this a realistic expectation of your tax dollars at work?
|
Again, yes. As far as I understand the law, having sex, even in my private residence, if it is in full view of people standing in public areas, is against the law.
Quote:
So, if a PO thinks something might be awry at your house and decides to go peek in your window, can he then bust you for having relations because you forgot to close your curtains?
|
No, but if he can see something that appears illegal going on in my house from the street, he is fully authorized to go check it out.
Quote:
We could argue the morality until the cows come home, but utilizing the police to enforce morality is a complete waste of their time, and my money.
|
I have not, and will not, argue the "morality" of what was going on in the fire station. In fact, I have already stated that I don't give a shit if a guy wants his boyfriend to dress up like a girl, and give him a BJ, so long as it is done in the privacy of someone's home, or other private place like a hotel room. I can't be any more clear that I DO NOT care about the "morality" argument here.
This confuses me. Are you saying that it is OK for the Sherriff's office to burst into private property without a warrant and no probable cause that something might be in violation of some EO? But at the same time saying that visibly clear violations of law should be ignored by LEOs because they are a "waste of time" for them?