Opinion ID: 1994058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: intimate area under the statute

Text: We recently restated the principles that guide a court when interpreting a statute. In construing a statute, we look first to the plain language of the statute, and if that language is clear and unambiguous, we look no further than the text of the statute. A plain reading of the statute assumes none of its language is superfluous or nugatory. We neither add nor delete words to a clear and unambiguous statute to give it a meaning not reflected by the words the Legislature used or engage in forced or subtle interpretation in an attempt to extend or limit the statute's meaning. We have often stated that if the language of the statute is not ambiguous, either inherently or by references to other relevant laws or circumstances, our inquiry as to legislative intent ends. If the meaning of the plain language is ambiguous or unclear, to discern legislative intent, we look to the legislative history, prior case law, the purposes upon which the statutory framework was based, and the statute as a whole. Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 349-50, 958 A.2d 356, 361 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The language of the statute itself is the primary source of [legislative] intent; and the words used are to be given their ordinary and popularly understood meaning, absent a manifest contrary legislative intention. Williams v. State, 329 Md. 1, 15, 616 A.2d 1275, 1282 (1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We have also, when examining the meaning of a particular statute or phrase, considered the judgments of other jurisdictions and their treatment of statutory provisions analogous to those in Maryland law. See, e.g., Stachowski v. Sysco Food Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 402 Md. 506, 528-31, 937 A.2d 195, 207-09 (2007) (reviewing federal law and the law of sister states in deciding the meaning of a phrase under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act). CL Section 3-301(f)(1) proscribes touching the genital or anal areas, [6] but does not otherwise specify what constitutes an intimate area[.] As no other statutory provision defines the term, we assume the legislature intended the word intimate to be understood as it is in common parlance. Intimate is commonly defined as [v]ery personal; private[.] See, e.g., THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 917 (4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Co. 2006). Private, in turn, is defined as [s]ecluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others[.] Id. at 1396, 937 A.2d 195. Certainly a reasonable person would consider the buttocks to be very personal and would find unwanted contact with that area to be particularly intrusive. Our society generally treats the buttocks as an intimate area of an individual's body. Usually, this part of the body is kept covered in public, and indeed in most private contexts. Community standards of decency are not static, and we recognize that in some settings, fashion and public propriety tolerate greater exposure of the human body, including portions of the buttocks, than was permitted in the past. Nevertheless, we are confident that society still generally considers the buttocks to be private areas an individual would not expect to be casually touched, even by a friend. These community standards are reflected in Maryland legislative enactments. The Maryland General Assembly has treated touching of the buttocks as prohibited sexual conduct in other sections of the Criminal Law Code. In title 11 of the Maryland Criminal Law Article, which governs indecency and obscenity, the legislature defined sexual conduct as any touching of the genitals, buttocks, or pubic areas of an individual; or breasts of a female individual. CL § 11-101(d)(3); see also CL § 3-902(a)(4) (defining [p]rivate area of an individual in the statute proscribing visual surveillance with prurient intent as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.). We have also suggested in our past precedent that generally the buttocks were an intimate area of the body. In Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341, 924 A.2d 308 (2007), we held that a law enforcement officer was unreasonable in his search of a criminal defendant. The officer manipulated the cheeks of the defendant's buttocks to obtain a better view of the defendant's anal cavity in order to determine if the defendant was hiding drugs there. Id. at 346, 924 A.2d at 311. The majority distinguished the cases cited by the dissent that suggested the search was reasonable by noting that the searches conducted in those cases d[id] not relate to the manipulation of the intimate parts of a suspect's person. Id. at 354, 924 A.2d at 316 n. 4. Although this opinion did not involve an interpretation of the phrase intimate areas in CL § 3-301, it does support the assertion that the buttocks have been regarded by this Court as an intimate part of the human body in the common usage of that word. Other jurisdictions have statutes, like Maryland's, which utilize the general term intimate parts or a similar phrase. See, e.g., Ala.Code § 13A-6-60(3) (2009) (defining sexual contact as [a]ny touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor, done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 707-700 (2009) (`Sexual contact' means any touching ... of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor, or of the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor by the person, whether directly or through the clothing or other material intended to cover the sexual or other intimate parts.); see also Mont. Code Ann. § 45-2-101(67) (2007); N.Y. Penal Law § 130.00(3) (2009); Or.Rev. Stat. § 163.305(6) (2007); Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.44.010(2) (2009). In several of these states, courts have interpreted intimate parts to include the buttocks. See, e.g., State v. Weese, 189 Mont. 464, 616 P.2d 371, 374 (1980); People v. Boykin, 127 A.D.2d 1004, 513 N.Y.S.2d 310, 311 (N.Y.App.Div.1987). In addition, other jurisdictions' courts have held the buttocks to be an intimate area. The Court of Appeals of Washington has determined that the buttocks, as well as the hips, were covered by their statute because they were sufficiently intimate part[s] of the anatomy that a person of common intelligence has fair notice that the nonconsensual touching of them is prohibited.... In re Adams, 24 Wash. App. 517, 601 P.2d 995, 997 (1979). The Oregon Court of Appeals, in affirming a conviction for sexual abuse where a defendant touched a victim's buttocks, held that the buttocks were an intimate area because the victim in that case considered them intimate and any reasonable person would have recognized the implication of such contact. State v. Stacy, 113 Or.App. 141, 830 P.2d 624, 625 (1992). In Parker v. State, 406 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the term `intimate parts'.... refers to any part of the body which a reasonable person would consider private with respect to touching by another. We believe that the thigh and the stomach are... intimate parts.... We are not aware of, nor has Mr. Bible drawn our attention to, any court that has interpreted the phrase intimate areas in a sexual crimes statute to exclude the buttocks. After considering all of the above, we conclude that the buttocks are an intimate area within the meaning of CL Section 3-301(f)(1) because a reasonable person would recognize the extremely personal nature of that part of the anatomy. The touching of the buttocks is therefore proscribed by CL Sections 3-307(a)(3) & 3-308(b)(1).