San Antonio Indecent Exposure Attorneys
Under Texas Law a person commits indecent exposure if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act. A persons first offense is a class B misdemeanor and has no registration requirements. If someone is given regular probation or jail time for their second offense there is a sex offender registration requirement that lasts 10 years.
If the exposure was done and the person knew a child was present the offense becomes described as indecency with a child and is a third-degree felony. Deferred adjudication is no longer available to defendants charged with indecency with a child by exposure as of September 2017. The statute only requires that the child be present not that the exposure was directed to the child.
Successful Cases Defending Indecent Exposure
The Defendant was charged with indecent exposure. The complainant alleged that the Defendant was masturbating in his car while parked in a store’s parking lot. She alleged he looked at her and continued to please himself. She got out of her car and photographed the defendants license plate and a few days later she identified the defendant in a police officer created photo array and at trial. After a 3-day trial the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY and his case was expunged.
Defendant was charged with Disorderly Conduct-Exposure. Ultimately the case was dismissed after a short deferral period of 90 days.
The defendant was charged with indecent exposure. The case against the defendant was developed in an unusual manner. The police spotted the defendant driving a car that matched a vehicle being driven by someone wanted for numerous cases of indecent exposure. The police approached the defendant after he exited his vehicle which was recorded on video. The police believed he matched the witnesses’ description of the perpetrator and he was wearing similar clothes as described by witnesses. The police did not arrest the defendant at this time but instead went back to the witness and asked her to view the videotape of their encounter with the defendant. She identified the defendant as the person who exposed himself. The witness also identified the defendant in a photo-array and in court at a pretrial hearing. The Court threw out the witnesses’ identifications after a pretrial hearing contesting the identification process as being too suggestive and that it violated our clients due process rights. The court’s ruling on the pretrial motions gutted the prosecution case. The case was then dismissed and expunged.
The defendant had two separate cases of indecent exposure. The prosecutors wanted to convict the defendant for both offenses which they believed would then require that the defendant register for 10 years as a sex offender. Ultimately the defendant got deferred adjudication on one case, thereby avoiding a conviction, and the other was dismissed. The case that was dismissed was expunged over the objection of DPS.
The defendant was charged with indecent exposure. The complainant allegedly saw the defendant masturbating while in his car as she was pulled up along- side him on the roadway. She asserted that he looked at her while in the act. The defendant told the officer that he did have an itch that required him to scratch; however, he did not expose himself. After hiring an investigator and getting statements the case was dismissed.
Indecent Exposure. Dismissed
Our client and his girlfriend were in the back of a van when the police stormed the vehicle. The officers claimed the parties were in various stages of undress. The female defendant, with a different lawyer, plead no contest to the offense and we set our clients case for trial. As the trial approached, we filed a motion to suppress and motion to quash. We also provided the prosecutor with case law that supported our positions. Our clients’ case was dismissed. I informed the lawyer for the female defendant that our case was dismissed and he was going to go back and plead to withdraw his client’s plea-obviously his client was given bad advice and should not have plead to the offense.
The defendant was facing two separate cases for indecent exposure. Each case involved different complainants and one case involved a complainant that knew the defendant. We were able to get one of the cases dismissed and one of the cases the defendant was given deferred adjudication. The case that dismissed has been expunged and the case wherein the defendant got deferred will eventually be sealed.
Most cases of indecent exposure fall under two categories: one involves a police officer that surreptitiously records an encounter while soliciting the exposure; the other involves a third-party complainant that reports an alleged exposure incident to the police.
After an investigation and collection of evidence an attorney experienced in defending individuals will map out a game plan on how to proceed. Most defenses involve either that the officer could not have been offended as he was actively soliciting the act; or the identification is flawed. Another legal maneuver is to file a motion to quash the charging incident because the prosecution must allege facts sufficient to show the defendant was reckless. This is occasionally difficult, and I have had cases dismissed after a hearing on the motion to quash.
We have successfully defended people charged with indecent exposure and have gotten courts to rule that the complainant could not identify the suspect in court because the out of court identification process was too flawed, this results in a dismissal. We have also obtained not guilty verdicts after jury trials in indecent exposure cases.
It is important that whomever you choose to represent you in an indecent exposure case that they have experience defending people for this charge. Too often people just take a plea bargain and accept that a deferred adjudication or probation isn’t that bad when there may be a good chance of defeating the charges.