| Author |
 Topic  |
|
argonaut
USA
1955 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2009 : 01:40:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by coveresid
Maybe by then the county sheriff will have a change in policy.
Lately is seems like changes in policy have been going in the wrong direction. Hopefully Seattle will have some better news.
The mayor-elect of Seattle has a web site for ideas about how to improve seattle ( www.ideasforseattle.org ) . Visitors can sign up and submit ideas. Right now, the #4 idea on the "Top Ideas" list is to set aside beach areas for clothing optional use. The bad news is most of the rest of the Top ideas, including #2 to legalize pot and to spend another bazillion dollars on worthless light rail and subway systems (#1). The stupid light rail that we have cost $179 million per mile and nobody uses it. |
 |
|
|
ddoger
Canada
205 Posts |
|
|
NobodyIKnow
17 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2009 : 17:53:11
|
I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice. Ask a real lawyer if you need advice. However, the Utah Criminal Code if available here: <http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/code.htm >. Title 76 is the Criminal Code.
The sign saying that "nudity is not prohibited" was posted by the US Forest Service. That is Forest Service policy and they won't send out rangers to track down people just for being naked. However, US Forest Service policy does not revoke or override applicable Utah Stat Law (Utah Code 76-9-702) which clearly makes this use of public land illegal. As I read the law it also means that almost all scout troops and families camping on public land for more than a few hours probably commit lewd acts. I also wonder how it might apply in dressing rooms at public facilities.
Utah Code 78-1-104 and 76-2-304 may be of interest to those wishing to mount a defense under similar circumstances.
Perhaps someone can start a campaign to change the law to require more "intent to offend" to make simple nudity a criminal act. Perhaps it should, at a minimum, equire 1) that someone actually be offended and 2) that the nude person ignore a request by the offended person to cover up.
I'd love to hear a real lawyer's comments about the vagueness and selective enforcement issues surrounding 76-9-702. If anyone has a reference to another forum where that discussion is more on topic I would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
argonaut
USA
1955 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2009 : 18:34:31
|
| I don't know about UT but in WA the question of nudity on FS land depends on a few things. Nudity is legal on all FS land UNLESS the FS has an agreement with a local jurisdiction for enforcement AND the local jurisdiction has prohibitions against nudity. In state parks, nudity is an infraction that carries a $50 fine - although I have never seen anyone around to enforce it. I have never heard of anyone being cited on FS lands, and the WA Freehikers frequently hike naked on FS land regardless of jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
NobodyIKnow
17 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:12:56
|
Argonaut, thanks for the info about WA. I checked WA code to see what the difference is: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.010
I see that the WA code on indecent exposure includes a clause requiring "open and obscene exposure" or some intent to offend. That has probably been interpreted by WA courts to exclude most or all simple nudity, especially when nobody is shocked or offended. Alas, no such phrase of intent exists in UT law.
(Note: This turned out to be a longer essay than I thought. I'm long winded,I guess. In what follows I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just explaining what I have learned by talking to USFS enforcement officers in several USFS districts in UT and reading portions of the US code. When I can, I like to read the applicable code and talk to those who actually enforce it. Paraphrasing a King of the Hill episode: "I am your worst nightmare. I have two telephone lines and absolutely nothing to do.")
Regarding USFS lands: Federal law allows each forest supervisor to determine allowed usages in his forest. (And yes, FS personnel do say HIS FOREST.) Nudity is expressly identified as a use which may be limited through a "closure order" from the forest supervisor. In both UT and WA there six National Forests, each of which could be under separate management. So each forest in the state could have different rules. I recently called the district headquarters for the six forests (and a couple of National Parks) in UT and asked the policy on nudity. Several, say that nudity is not prohibited and that rangers would not enforce the UT law in the absence of other very annoying or offending behavior. Some districts say the forest is closed to nudity and also point out that officers are allowed to and would enforce the UT law.
So, I believe that the statement that nudity is legal on all FS lands in WA is the result of two separate rules: 1) the forest supervisors has not closed the forest to that use - which could be done independent of state law and 2) that WA state law requires more egregious intent to make nudity illegal. The combined result is a good thing for WA residents!
The point is that people must not depend on sweeping statements such as "nudity is permitted in national forests." Instead you must actually know the FS closure orders (call the FS district office) and the applicable rules established by state and local law (call local police departments). The same goes for National Parks and other federally controlled lands. It gets complicated sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Captain Curmudgeon
USA
891 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2009 : 01:22:20
|
| Good post, NBIK. Welcome to the forum (although I see you have 7 posts and I'm logging on late and seeing only two new posts forum-wide. |
|
|
|
argonaut
USA
1955 Posts |
|
|
NobodyIKnow
17 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2009 : 19:25:56
|
Thanks, Argonaut. Looks like you have to be careful even in WA.
Captain, thanks. I enjoy reading your comments. |
|
|
|
FullMonty
865 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2009 : 20:53:09
|
Thanks Nobody,
That's some good information. For now, I'll just try to avoid all the forest management people, it could just get too complicated and take the fun out of it for me. |
|
|
|
argonaut
USA
1955 Posts |
|
|
argonaut
USA
1955 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 12:40:50
|
One of the guys in my hiking group posted this in regard to the Diamond Fork arrests:
quote:
National Forest land located
within the State of Utah is *not* federal land carved out of the State
of Utah and set above the state's interests. When the national forest
was created (by an act of Congress) Utah ceded only proprietary
jurisdiction . . . which is nothing more than acknowledging a federal
ownership and management interest of the lands without giving up any
State Rights. The federal government is nothing more than a property
owner like any other property owner in the state . . . subject to all
State and local laws. It may promulgate its' own rules and regulations
but those rules may not 'trump' state and local law. Local law
enforcement has every right to to enter and enforce state and county law
on those federal lands . . . and to have those cases tried in local
courts. Utah has had a long-running legal battle with the federal
government over jurisdictional issues on lands where the feds do have
exclusive jurisdiction . . . like BLM lands. However, the National
Forest lands jurisdiction was never in question . . . the state ceded
and the feds accepted nothing more than proprietary jurisdiction when
the forest was created.
Other western states took a different approach, ceding Exclusive
Jurisdiction for lands that became parts of National Parks (where only
Federal Law, including the Assimilative Crimes Act which codifies local
state law as federal, apply); and Concurrent Jurisdiction for National
Forests that allow local law enforcement to apply State Law but not
other local laws.
The issue of many BLM lands with Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction is a
thorn in the side for many Western States. The feds maintain that these
lands under the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the federal
government were 'reserved' out of the original territories under the
Acts that created the various western states . . . and were, therefor,
never a part of a state. Utah, Nevada, et al, contend otherwise and
push State Rights issues wherever they can. I'm sure this recent raid
has some elements of Utah's federal-defiance in it.
For more information (a lot more) see his blog:
http://nudehiker.blogspot.com/2008/01/nudity-and-law-in-washington-state.html?zx=e4fa7a16a7561f2
|
|
|
|
argonaut
USA
1955 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 12:44:04
|
I also got this from Don Zirbel who is on the NAC Board:
quote:
It is a rather muddy jurisdictional quagmire there. Utah is one of my states on the NAC board, and I've been wading through the state and local laws and who enforces what, etc. Today I spoke with two of the individuals who were charged, and their accounts of the incident smack of abuse of authority by Utah County, whose alleged actions are an embarrassment to the law enforcement community as far as I'm concerned. We're pledging to do what we can for this group of soakers, and Utah naturism in general.
More to come, to be sure...
Don
Here is an article about it that mentions us (kind of).
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-9958-skinny-dipper-crackdown.html |
|
|
|
coveresid
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 00:37:51
|
| I liked reading the City Weekly article and the new information. Glad to see at least one of the soakers fighting the citation she received. Now there isn't much of a concern since very few people hike the springs now that the snow has come. The forest service has closed a lower gate on the road which adds about 3 miles to the hike. The normal hike is 2.5 miles if I remember correctly. Plus with the snow, the trail gets tricky and a little dangerous. I really doubt the sheriff dept. will go up there now. Next spring when the snow melts and the road re-opens to the parking lot, it will be interesting to see if they start the enforcement again. Sometimes I think they just try to make a point of over enforcement when they are called on the carpet like they have been and have to go to court to testify for issuing the citation. |
|
|
|
NobodyIKnow
17 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2010 : 23:49:23
|
| A quick follow-up. Tonight (Feb. 6, 2010) channel 13 (FOX in Salt Lake City) announced that they would have a report on the situation at Diamond Fork springs next Monday on the 9:00 pm news. I'm sure it won't be much but perhaps it will spur some discussions around the water cooler the next day. (OK, I doubt that too but it sounds good.) The quick interviews they used in the teaser indicated that most people didn't care about nudity there and thought the police overreacted |
|
|
|
NobodyIKnow
17 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 07:43:10
|
The local news segment at 6:OO AM on KUER (a Salt Lake city NPR station) reported the county attorney has decided to drop the charges against the eight people arrested/cited last year in the Diamond Fork midnight raid and ogle fest(my phrase). The reason was the ambiguous message caused by the sign posted by the Forest Service at the trail head which said nudity was not prohibited. The attorney said it just wasn't a good case to prosecute.
Too bad the Forest Service has removed the sign.
Anyone know any Utah legislators who would be supportive of changing the statue on lewdness or at least sponsoring legislation to allow designated area for legal nudity? Maybe we can make a difference. <smirk, duck> |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Diamond Fork in the winter?
