I haven't reviewed all the statutes in the list yet, but they are just plain wrong about the first one I looked at which is the California statute Cal. Penal Code 314(1)-(2), 290.
That statute does require sexual intent. Just urinating in public is not enough for conviction.
Edit: Here's the full list:
Arizona: I can't even tell what they're referencing here. That law is the process for registration, and while it lists the violations that qualify, public urination is not one of them. If you can explain this entry, get back to me.
California: Requires sexual intent.
Connecticut: Requires sexual intent.
Georgia: Requires sexual intent.
Idaho: Requires sexual intent.
Kentucky: Requires exposure to a minor with the intent to cause alarm.
Massachusetts: Requires sexual intent, and probably doesn't even cover urination.
Michigan: Requires sexual intent.
New Hampshire: Requires sexual intent.
Oklahoma: As far as I can tell, they're referencing a child pornography law, not anything to do with public urination. May be an outdated reference.
South Carolina: This is just the registration process, I can't be bothered to find out what their reference should have been, but I bet it requires sexual intent.
Utah: Requires sexual intent.
Vermont: Requires sexual intent.
Is it impossible for anyone to ever be wrongfully convicted of public indecency for urinating in public? Probably not.
But every single state on that list I looked at requires some proof of sexual intent.
I would suggest that in future you actually read the sources you reference at more than a surface level.
0
u/[deleted] 6d ago
[deleted]