Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on indecent‑exposure rewrite raises constitutional and targeting concerns
Summary
HB 446 would expand indecent‑exposure law to specify public places and add language tied to 'dignity'; supporters say it fills statutory gaps while opponents — including domestic‑violence advocates, trans advocates, and legal groups — say it is vague, risks criminalizing ordinary behavior, and appears to target transgender and non‑binary people.
Representative Jedidiah Hinkle opened HB 446 by saying Montana’s indecent-exposure law needs updating to ensure that public‑place exposures and harms to a person’s dignity are chargeable. He repeatedly tied his proposal to Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution, which “recognizes the dignity of the human being as inviolable.”
Proponents, including Derek Oestricher (chief legal counsel for the Montana Family Foundation), urged the committee to link statutory protection to the constitutional concept of dignity so individuals who knowingly expose intimate parts and thus violate another’s dignity could be held accountable. Oestricher said the bill would align law with constitutional protections and provide a clear standard for accountability.
Opponents across a broad coalition pushed back. Kelson Young of the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence testified the bill “is trying to remove trans and non binary people from our public spaces,” arguing the draft removes intent requirements for a defined group and could criminalize ordinary changing and restroom use. Atlas Gilbert and River Segar (trans community members) described real-life harms and warned of criminal penalties for routine activity. Robin Turner (LegalVoice) and the ACLU (noting opposition) highlighted drafting problems: the statute inserts the undefined term “violate the dignity,” broadens the definition of public places to include many everyday spaces, and removes intent elements in some subsections—setting up potential vagueness and civil‑liberty challenges.
Brett Shandelson, director of the Office of State Public Defender, and other defense‑oriented witnesses explained the practical effect: the bill as drafted would maintain a mental-state requirement to knowingly expose intimate parts but would drop the requirement that the defendant intended to abuse, humiliate, harass, or arouse; that change, Shandelson said, could expose people who disrobe in ordinary circumstances (for example, to shower or change) to criminal liability even without intent to harm. Multiple committee members asked whether the bill targets transgender people and whether the phrase “intimate parts” is defined; witnesses and the sponsor said those are unresolved drafting issues that could produce litigation over vagueness.
Representative Hinkle said the bill is not intended to target a specific group and that subsection 1 of the bill covers exposures that involve intent to harass, humiliate, or degrade. He argued subsection 2 addresses public‑place exposures and clarified the intent language. Opponents responded that the combination of broad public‑place definitions, an undefined “dignity” standard, and removal of a mens rea for certain categories would likely prompt litigation and could have chilling effects on access to public facilities.
The committee engaged in extended questioning but did not take a final vote; the hearing record closed after the sponsor’s remarks.
Next steps: Additional drafting and committee work would be required to address vagueness and mens‑rea concerns before any vote.
