No dispute over facts in indecent exposure charge

On Monday, the case went before Skamania District Court Judge Ronald H. Reynier, who heard arguments on a so-called Knapstad motion to dismiss, which requires that the prosecution and defense agree on all facts of the case.

They did, but presented starkly different ways the judge could view Lauser’s actions.

“My client was protesting the current presidential administration’s executive order, which basically put in place that under federal law that there are two genders, and that … every person is the gender that they were assigned at birth,” defense attorney Brian Pruett told the judge.

“That’s highly offensive to my client, and as a result, on the Fourth of July … [she] chose to protest in a way that clearly addresses that issue,” he said. 

Pruett said there are two major points for the judge to consider — first, whether any nudity actually happened. He argued no, as Lauser’s nipples were covered.

“It’s the amount of exposure that a person would have if they were wearing a bikini,” he told Judge Reynier. He also argued that “if there was a person in town who was male on the Fourth of July and were walking down the street without a shirt on, we would not have a prosecution for obscenity or any indecent exposure.”

But even if the court decides Lauser exposed enough of her body to potentially be legally indecent, Pruett argued that there was no basis to view her actions as obscene.

“Conduct, if it’s topless in nature, is speech, unless there’s some sort of sexualized behavior,” he said.

Lauser was “standing there protesting, not trying to incite arousal in any way, shape or form,” Pruett said, adding that the council member had protested in “an appropriate manner, on an appropriate day and an appropriate place.”

Skamania County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Elise Howard largely referred the judge to the written arguments she had filed, which say that the public could have easily misunderstood Lauser’s intention.

“Because Ms. Lauser’s protest was non-verbal and the message was unlikely to be understood by those who viewed her conduct … it can be analyzed as mere conduct and not protected speech and is thus easily found to be obscene,” Howard wrote, asking the judge to “find that there is at least a possibility that a reasonable juror” could make the same interpretation.

In court, she added that “the law … is ambiguous, and when there is an ambiguity such as that, it’s our duty to prosecute and bring that question before the court.”

The Skamania County prosecutor has a contract with the City of Stevenson to prosecute cases on the city’s behalf. To avoid a potential conflict of interest but allow this case to be prosecuted, Lauser agreed to not vote on any future contracts between the city and Skamania County that may come up during her tenure as a council member.

Judge Reynier said the case raises “complicated stuff” and that he would rule after he “has a full handle” on all the material.

If he doesn’t dismiss the case, the next step would be a jury trial.

•••

Emily Harris is a co-founder and Uplift Local’s Community Journalism Director, overseeing the local newsroom network and the Documenters program.