Sacto D.A. won't prosecute bare-breasted women...

SACRAMENTO D.A. WON'T PROSECUTE
Ms. Glaser and Ms. Love

( bare-breasted female political demonstrators,
busted by CHP on 7 November 2005 at state capitol)

.......
[ Sacto District Attorney's office tells CHP:
"Under the circumstances, we will file no criminal charges in this matter. " ]
...........

November 15, 2005

[to ] Lt. Allen Stallman
California Highway Patrol
1801 - 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: File No. 51378AN; suspect Sheryl Lynn Glaser
File No. 51379AN; suspect Renee Suzanne Love

Dear Lt. Stallman:

This concerns the above cases, submitted to our office for prosecution.
In the course of a political demonstration on the grounds of the State Capitol,
both suspects completely exposed their breasts.
They were arrested for violating Penal Code section 314 (indecent exposure),
647(a) (lewd act in a public place),
and Government Code section 14685 (violation of CHP regulation on state property).

Both section 314 and section 647(a) require a sexual intent.
Nudity without sexual intent does not violate these statutes.
See Robins v. County of Los Angeles (1966) 248 Cal.App.2d 1, at 10-11; Barrows v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1970) 1 Cal.3d 821; Boreta Enterprises v. Department of Alcholic Beverage Control (1970) 2 Cal.3d 85, at 99; In re Smith (1972) 7 Cal.3d 362, at 366; Pryor v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1979) 25 Cal.3d 238, at 255-57; In re Dallas W. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 937.
The conduct here clearly had a political, not a sexual, intent.

As to Government Code section 14685, no CHP regulation for the use of state property
prohibits mere nudity.
The permit for the demonstration was sought and granted in the name of the organization "Breasts Not Bombs." The officer who granted the permit discussed breast exposure with the permit applicant, and the permit itself refers to "any person who exposes private parts," but both the pre-permit discussion and the written permit expressly referred to violations of sections 314 and 647(a). Since the conduct here did not violate those statutes, we do not believe a jury would conclude the applicant either mislead [misled] the officer who issued the permit, or violated the terms of the permit.

Under the circumstances, we will file no criminal charges in this matter.

Sincerely yours,
JAN SCULLY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ALBERT C. LOCHER Assistant Chief Deputy
The permit states, "Any person who exposes private parts is subject to arrest per Calif. Penal Code sections 314 and 647a."

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SACRAMENTO COUNTY
JAN SCULLY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CYNTHIA G. BESEMER CHIEF DEPUTY
P.O. Box 749 * 901 G Street * Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 874-6218
FAX (916) 874-5340

........

[Notes by Senior Unlimited Nudes (SUN) of San Francisco:
The text above has been edited slightly.
For clarity, SUN has added line breaks which weren't in the original letter;
and has inserted "[misled]" after "mislead" (to indicate past tense).
Also, some changes occurred when SUN translated this file into Plain Text.
The original Word (?) document may have included an embedded photo.

Media inquiries should be directed to:
Albert C. Locher, Assistant Chief Deputy, Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento County.]
..........