Online Registry Cir: Fill & Download for Free

Pragmatically, it’s not.Yes, it’s true that indecent exposure is generally subject to registration, and yes public urination can be charged as indecent exposure, but I cannot find a single case of a person so-punished. I can find cases where someone did it in an obviously sexual manner - e.g. intentionally peeing in a playground in front of children, which is an example I prosecuted myself, and where the defendant had a history of such attempts to show his penis to children - but I cannot find any actual cases of public peeing leading to a sex offender registration without such context.Now, I’m not familiar with every single case out there, so maybe such a person exists. But, if so, isn’t it weird that you can’t find him online?We see lots of news sites claiming this to be an issue, but you’ll notice they never identify an affected defendant. Given that such a defendant would, by definition, be publically listed, isn’t that a bit interesting?Here’s Mens Health talking about it in 2015: You Might Be a Sex Offender and Not Even Know It! The same article mentions a construction worker being deported for this sort of thing in 2005, but doesn’t name him, and doesn’t even claim that he was forced to register; just that it was a crime.Business Insider, writing about this supposed issue in 2013, didn’t bother to name a single example: 7 Surprising Things That Could Make You A Sex OffenderSalon did the same thing in 2015, failing to find a single example: From beach sex to public urination: 9 insane things that will get you labeled a sex offenderActually, we find one defendant listed, over and over, and he doesn’t appear to be actually real. A person named “Juan Matamoros”, who supposedly was forced to move in 2007 while living in Florida because he was arrested for Public Urination in Massachusetts in 1986. He’s mentioned in that Men’s Health article, but he appeared in un-sourced blogs long before that. He’s the only named defendant I’ve ever seen. 2009: The Pee-nal code and sex crimes.But is that true?The earliest article about it is a 2007 piece in the Orlando Sentinel (Long-ago charge to cost man his home). It claimed that he was arrested in Boston in 1986 after bar-hopping and peeing in a residential area. Of course, the reason he got anyone’s attention in Florida wasn’t that he was a sex offender: it was that he was arrested for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell (to which he pleaded no-contest, i.e. guilty, in 2006).The Florida registry is here: Sexual Offender and Predator SystemGuess who doesn’t appear there?The Massachusetts registry is here: https://sorb.chs.state.ma.us/sorbpublic/recaptcharEntry.action?_p=52NKe1fjeiDNxABtlSO4J0-Q9Jhnn-GCPtgS7bCH0l5DZIZj9TgcBm5UYKGfjjhBJ5EsW6UAYWZe2szxxWcnoZaRyVdBJnl392rW2o-uDZYGuess who doesn’t appear here either?Now, I think he’s a sex offender, because in 2012 he was charged again for failure to properly register as a sex offender, in Orange City. Here’s the blotter: Volusia County public records May 18, 2012. He pleaded guilty in July of 2012 (case number: 2012 001190 CFAWS). He’s also been convicted apparently of battery, and just in 2016 he was injoined for stalking Angela Costa in case 2016 11262 FMDL.In short, I think he’s a sex offender, but cannot find any evidence whatsoever that it has anything do to with public urination. Given his criminal history before and after, it’s hard to take his word.Now I did find one case, In re Birch, in California, where a defendant was convicted of violating Section 647(a) which was for lewd conduct, based on peeing in the parking lot of a Taco Bell. However, this appears to come down to a judge who was intentionally ignoring his rights: the guilty plea was defective for other reasons, and reversed (In re Birch). In other words, he was being rail-roaded, and the conviction was for a crime to which his actions didn’t meet the standard. The plea litany, which was quoted in full in the opinion there, didn’t even summarize the facts. I don’t think the judge was even aware the facts involved public urination. In fact, the California Supreme Court discussed this in Footnote 4:On this state of the record, which discloses that no testimony has been taken or evidence adduced as to the facts underlying the crime and no stipulation has been entered as to such events, we believe that we should not attempt to determine whether the conduct allegedly resulting in the charges is, as a matter of law, insufficient to support a conviction under section 647, subdivision (a). If, on remand, the state chooses to reprosecute Birch on such charges, defendant will of course remain free to show that his conduct did not exhibit the requisite "sexual motivation" to bring it within the ambit of "lewd and dissolute conduct" proscribed by section 647, subdivision (a). (Cf. In re Smith (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 362, 366 [102 Cal. Rptr. 335, 497 P.2d 807]; Wainwright v. Procunier (9th Cir. 1971) 446 F.2d 757, 759-760.)In other words, the California Supreme Court (which is the final arbiter, by definition, as to what California laws mean) was very clear that to be convicted of this offense requires a “sexual motivation”, which isn’t present in normal public urination cases.