Move along, nothing to read

Here's a wonderfuly messed up news article. Have the US courts not forgotten their previously proved cases regarding nakedness on private property? I forget the names, but the previous case of an Illinois man mowing his lawn in the nude is at least one of the relevant cases. Secondly, why is the 14-year-old male complaining about a full-frontal view of a woman? Either he's gay, or exceedingly sexually repressed.

Judge Rules Indecent Exposure Is for Men Only

From Associated Press
1:26 PM PDT, October 20, 2006

A Riverside judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men.

Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person."

"It's gender specific," Armstrong said.

He dismissed a misdemeanor charge against Alexis Luz Garcia, 40, of Corona, who was cited in May after parents of a neighbor boy said she showed him full-frontal nudity as he played basketball.

Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."

Norton said Garcia had complained that the 14-year-old was making too much noise while playing basketball. She went out on her sundeck.

"He looked up at her, she looked down at him, and she disrobed," Norton contended.

The boy ran inside and told his parents, who complained to Garcia.

"She threatened to do it every time he played basketball," and the parents called police, Norton said.

Original sources (both California papers):
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-102006expose,0,7817008.story?coll=la-story-footer
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15809376.htm