Court Opinion

ID: 9736678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:02:23.843119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:08.019271
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
The ordinance in question prohibits indecent acts, immodest acts, or filthy acts in the presence of any person. Although the ordinance may be too broad in some respects, it would seem the defendant in this case lacks standing to raise the issue. See 16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 461 (1979). The exhibition of his genitals under the circumstances of this case was, clearly, an indecent act.
Statutes and ordinances prohibiting indecent exposure generally have been held valid. I do not subscribe to the view that it is only “possible” that such *600conduct may be prohibited by statute or ordinance. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-806 (Reissue 1979).
Clinton and Hastings, JJ., join in this dissent.