CA Court of Appeals rules public urination by defendant can lead to detention, search

The police could detain a defendant and conduct a search based on observing him urinating in public, the California Court of Appeal has ruled.

Driving down a busy street, a police officer saw a man urinating in a parking lot. The officer searched him incident to arresting him and found

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that public urination was not a crime and therefore the officer had no right to search him.

But the state disagreed.

While it determined that public urination did not fall under statutes prohibiting dumping, littering or the release of injurious or nauseous substances in public places, it said urinating in public was a public nuisance.

[W]e have no trouble concluding that [the defendant's] act was 'injurious to health or indecent, or offensive to the senses' as required by statute. Because these criteria are stated in the disjunctive, the act of public urination need satisfy only one of them to be considered an offense (a 'proscribed act') under [the statute]. We believe, however that public urination satisfies all three criteria. First, allowing individuals to urinate in public endangers the public health. Second, urinating in public is also 'indecent' as that term is used in [the statute]. A common dictionary definition of the word 'indecent' is 'grossly unseemly or offensive to manners or morals.' As the Supreme Court of the United States has noted, '[t]here are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine.' Third, urinating in public is also 'offensive to the senses.' [U]rine is 'nauseating and offensive' when excreted in public places. Indeed, behavior that would arguably be less offensive to the sense than public urination nevertheless constitutes a public nuisance under California law, the court said.

Further, the court said public urination interfered with the 'comfortable enjoyment of both life and property by any considerable number of persons.'

People v. McDonald (Lawyers Weekly USA No. 9932813) California Court of Appeal, 1st District No. A108690. March 8, 2006.