Wicks v. City of Charlottesville

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a statute must be construed in conformity with the common law, which required that the indecent exposure occur in front of at least one person, or in a place where it is likely to be seen by at least one person
• holding that a statute must be construed in conformity with the common law, which required that the indecent exposure occur in front of at least one person, or in a place where it is likely to be seen by at least one person
• noting that, if the exposure likely could be seen, it is irrelevant “whether actually seen by a single person or by several” because it still “is an act of ‘gross and open indecency, injurious to public morals’ ” (citation omitted)
• upholding indecent exposure conviction under municipal code where the arresting officer saw defendant holding his hand in front of his pants while urinating on a public street
• affirming conviction where defendant urinated while walking down the sidewalk in town
• affirming conviction where defendant urinated while walking down the sidewalk in town

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).