Definition
The criminal offense of intentionally exposing one's naked body or genitals in a public place, under circumstances calculated to shock the feelings of chastity or corrupt public morals. The offense targets deliberate, public indecency rather than accidental or private nudity.
The core elements are intentionality, publicity, and indecency. Mere nudity in an appropriate private setting does not satisfy the offense. The harm the law addresses is to communal moral standards and the sensibilities of unwilling observers — not simply to the individual who witnesses the act.
At common law, the offense was indictable without the need for a specific statute, grounded in the broader principle that public exhibitions outraging decency or corrupting morals are punishable by courts of general jurisdiction. Modern jurisdictions have largely codified the offense under statutes variously titled indecent exposure, public indecency, or lewd and lascivious conduct.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Exposure" in ordinary English refers broadly to the act of uncovering or making visible something previously hidden, or to being subjected to an external influence or condition. "Exposure of person" as a phrase is not in standard lay vocabulary.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Exposure" — the act of exposing or the condition of being exposed; the laying open of anything to view or to environmental influence.
The gap between common and legal meaning is meaningful. In ordinary usage, "exposure" has no inherent moral or criminal charge — one "exposes" film, wounds, or a hillside to sunlight. The legal phrase "exposure of person" is a term of art carrying a specific criminal meaning: deliberate public indecency. Researchers encountering the phrase in historical legal sources should not read it in the neutral lay sense.
---
Common Confusion
EXPOSURE OF PERSON vs. INDECENT EXPOSURE: Modern statutes and courts have largely abandoned "exposure of person" as the operative phrase, replacing it with "indecent exposure" or "public indecency." These terms cover substantively the same conduct, but the modern formulations often add specificity — requiring exposure of genitals, buttocks, or female breast, and requiring intent to arouse, gratify, or offend. Historical sources using "exposure of person" should be understood as the predecessor to these modern formulations, not as a narrower or broader category.
EXPOSURE OF PERSON vs. LEWDNESS / LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT: Some jurisdictions treat lewd conduct as a broader category that subsumes indecent exposure; others treat them as distinct offenses depending on whether physical contact occurred or whether the conduct involved more than mere exposure. In historical sources, the terms sometimes appear interchangeably.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a historically grounded term that has largely exited modern legal usage in favor of statutory replacements. Researchers face two distinct challenges.
First, terminology drift. Pre-twentieth century sources — including case reporters, treatises, and indictments — use "exposure of person" where modern sources say "indecent exposure." Searching only the modern phrase will miss significant historical material. Conversely, searching "exposure" in historical databases without the qualifying "of person" will return large amounts of irrelevant material involving property exposure, insurance, or tort liability.
Second, common law versus statutory foundations. The historical dictionaries emphasize that this offense was indictable at common law without statutory authority — a point with real research significance. In jurisdictions that abolished common law crimes, the question of whether the offense survived without a specific statute is a live issue for historical legal analysis. Bouvier's explicit grounding in the common law principle that outrages to public decency are punishable without express statute is a useful anchor for this research question.
Third, the phrase "private parts" appears in Black's but not in Bouvier's, which speaks only of "naked body." This divergence matters: Bouvier's formulation potentially sweeps more broadly, while Black's more closely anticipates modern statutes focused on genital exposure specifically. When working with historical indictments or charges, the applicable dictionary formulation may determine how broadly the offense was understood.
Researchers building arguments about the historical scope of indecency law — including First Amendment challenges to modern statutes — should note the moral-corruption rationale embedded in both definitions. The framing of the offense as protection of community morals rather than individual bodily autonomy is significant for constitutional analysis across different eras.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's are in close agreement on the essential definition: intentional exposure, in a public place, of the naked body, calculated to shock the feelings of chastity or corrupt morals. The formulations are nearly identical, suggesting a stable common law understanding at the time both dictionaries were compiled.
Black's adds the phrase "or the private parts," which slightly narrows the mental picture from full nudity to partial exposure — more consistent with modern statutory language. Bouvier's omits this qualification but compensates with a fuller doctrinal explanation, explicitly grounding the offense in the common law rule against public exhibitions that outrage decency, shock humanity, or contravene good morals. Bouvier's framing is therefore more useful for understanding the theoretical foundation of the offense; Black's is more useful for understanding how courts would parse a specific charge.
Neither dictionary addresses the intent element with precision. Both require that the exposure be "intentional," but neither explains whether the defendant must intend the indecency (i.e., intend that the exposure be seen and cause offense) or merely intend the act of exposure. Modern courts and statutes have grappled significantly with this question, and researchers should not assume the historical definitions resolve it.
Neither source addresses the growing modern distinction between exposure directed at a specific unwilling observer versus general public nudity — a dimension that courts and legislatures have increasingly built into contemporary indecent exposure law.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Virtually all U.S. jurisdictions have replaced common law exposure of person with specific statutes, but the statutory elements vary. Some require intent to arouse sexual desire; others require only intent to expose. A minority of jurisdictions distinguish exposure in the presence of a minor as a separate, more serious offense. Researchers working across state lines should not assume uniform elements even where the statutory label is the same.
---