Opinion ID: 2543718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: application of the city council's definition

Text: ¶ 28 Applying the definition of a place open for public view according to the common meaning of its terms, we conclude that defendant's conduct satisfied the definition's first element, but we remand for a determination of whether his conduct satisfied the second element.
¶ 29 To satisfy the definition's first element, defendant's sexual conduct must have occurred in an area capable of [either] use or observance by persons from the general community. Salt Lake City Code § 11.16.010(M) (1996). We conclude that the area in which defendant engaged in sexual conduct, i.e., the interior of a car located in the parking lot of a bar was capable of ... observance by persons from the general community. Id. Specifically, based on the common meaning of the word capable, defendant's conduct in the car's interior was capable of ... observance if persons from the general community were able to observe the conduct. See Webster's Third International Dictionary 330 (1986). This was certainly the case. According to the officer's undisputed trial testimony, anyone could have reached the officer's vantage point on foot. Moreover, as noted by the court of appeals, the trial court concluded that defendant was in a public parking lot, which indicates that it was used by persons from the general community. Salt Lake City Code § 11.16.010(M) (1996). Accordingly, we conclude that, as a matter of law, defendant engaged in sexual conduct in an area capable of ... observance by persons from the general community.
¶ 30 The second element of the definition of a [p]lace open for public view requires a determination of whether an expectation for privacy for the activity engaged in by individuals is reasonably justified. Salt Lake City Code § 11.16.010(M). In this regard, we conclude that the trial court's limited factual findings do not permit us to determine whether defendant's conduct satisfied the second element, which requires an inquiry into the totality of the relevant circumstances. We therefore remand with instructions that the trial court make this determination according to the common meaning of the words of the second element. See, e.g., State v. Hansen, 857 P.2d 978, 982 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (remanding for additional findings because trial court's factual findings did not allow appellate court to determine whether the legal standard was satisfied). If the court finds that defendant's expectation of privacy was not reasonably justified, the court should find defendant guilty of disorderly conduct as it has already been determined that his conduct satisfied the other elements of this crime. [2]