Under Ohio law, a conviction for public indecency requires proof of three distinct elements. Each element serves to delineate the prohibited conduct from constitutionally protected behavior. Defending against indecency charges in Cleveland requires understanding all three elements.
1. Reckless Exposure
The individual’s conduct must be “reckless,” meaning they consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their private parts will be seen by others. Recklessness does not demand a specific intent to offend or arouse.
Instead, it focuses on whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have recognized and ignored the risk of public exposure. For example, intentionally disrobing in a parking lot adjacent to a busy retail store satisfies the recklessness requirement, even if the actor claims they did not intend anyone to observe them.
2. Public Place
A “public place” is any location to which the general public, or a substantial group of persons, has access. This definition extends beyond streets and parks to include theaters, shopping malls, open parking lots, and any privately owned venue open to the public.
The key inquiry is whether the area is readily accessible or observable by passersby. Thus, disrobing behind a low fence in the backyard of a suburban home may qualify if neighbors or pedestrians could easily view the act.
3. Likely to Be Viewed
Ohio’s statute focuses on the likelihood of observation, not on actual witnesses. The prosecutor must demonstrate that, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude others were likely to see the indecent conduct. Factors include lighting conditions, proximity to foot or vehicle traffic, and the actor’s location relative to vantage points.
The prosecution does not necessarily need a witness to convict you of public indecency. In 2024, the Ohio Appellate Court, in State v. Simon, affirmed a public indecency conviction under Ohio Revised Code § 2907.09(A)(2), even though no one actually testified to witnessing the act.
The court determined that engaging in masturbation in a publicly accessible parking lot, where passersby reasonably could have seen, met the statute’s “likely to be viewed” requirement.
