indecent exposure constitutes a crime of moral turpitude just hours of minutes that's at first glance or an individual's instinctive conclusion would be himself was sexually motivated and we would submit that that is an important or key element in this analysis in other words did the defendant or the person involved commit the act of willful act for purposes of sexual arousal gratification or affront and we would submit that there is nothing in the record of conviction either in the complaint which only tracks the language of the statute or in minutes for him to have been convicted because california defines you do what you just described is going to be for for sexual motivation in order for him to have convicted wouldn't we necessarily have to conclude that it was for one of those reasons sexual front or severe consequences to petition or if he's found removable and i believe that there is that a court authority for that there a way to commit this crime in california that would not involve l hypothetical where someone could be convicted under the statute but it wouldn't involve lucas's as the california court defines in all the cases you just talk about wouldn't violate it so we're not worried about that right  that it is but a front again i believe you would have to look at the record conviction determined what the circumstances were what the what the what the facts showed that led to the conviction turpitude the statute of the charges remove the ability it's one point i would like to clarify is that the government respectfully disagrees with petitioners contention that the court sh the language of the statute encompasses conduct that could be an aggravated felony and some conduct that could not be an aggravated felony would not be an aggravated felony the court then must look to the record of conviction which is a very finite number of annoy or front the passing traffic but it wasn't sexual affront it was just poor judgment on the part of the individual in that case and that case was dallas there is one caliph and that i believe in both briefs the dallas for under three fourteen point one that involves sexual front and that's the archer case which i believe was stated in the government's brief which was dealing with an individual who exposed himself to a fellow driver in an instance of road rage and made  can look at but even looking at what he did which sustained a conviction that it wasn't a sexual front to a fellow driver not only is it unsafe it is an act that it's based and it craves and contrary to the morals of instructional even though it went the other way because looking at this conviction in that case malicious mischief we don't have the same shit that we do here where we have that specific intent we have full you have to have been willful intent to be convicted under this crime we have the lewd element which has been defined multiple times for this court you can't be convicted under the statute without those two prongs and it has to be for conduct that is inherently based craved and contrary to the morals of society so th that constitute a violation of the statute your honor i guess that would depend if her breasts are considered genitals which is what the court or what the california courts have looked at in this case whether it was willful and lewd exposure convicted under the statute but again it would depend upon the circumstances of that case it will go to certify the question