Here, the officer testified that he saw Ms. Maley with her pants and underwear pulled down, fully exposed, while urinating. The conduct occurred at a bus stop in a location with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The video showed several cars driving past her while she was urinating. The officer was able to view the conduct while driving down the road.
State v. Maley
First District Appellate Court
Hamilton County, Ohio
April 30, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Maley is important because the First District Appellate Court reaffirmed that public urination can constitute public indecency under O.R.C. §2907.09 when a person exposes a private area under circumstances likely to be viewed by others. The court clarified that the State does not need to prove an actual citizen witnessed the conduct, only that the exposure was likely to be observed in a public setting. The decision also confirms that buttocks qualify as a “private area” under Ohio law and rejects the argument that an “urgent call of nature” creates an exception to the public indecency statute.
Background
Thurmell Maley appeals her conviction, after a bench trial, for public indecency. In two assignments of error, Ms. Maley contends that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence and contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in finding her guilty of a third-degree misdemeanor where the evidence failed to establish any of the circumstances in R.C. 2907.09(C)(2) to raise the offense above a fourth-degree misdemeanor. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the clerical error to reflect the conviction was a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Factual Background
A Law Enforcement Eyewitness to Public Urination
Ms. Thurmell Maley was charged with public indecency after a police officer witnessed her urinating in public. Ms. Maley proceeded to a bench trial.
Urine had to Come from Somewhere
At the trial, the State’s sole witness was a Cincinnati police officer. The officer testified that he came into contact with Ms. Maley at the intersection of Reading Road and Dana Avenue. As he was driving down Reading Road at 6:00 p.m., he saw Ms. Maley with her pants and underwear pulled down, fully exposed, urinating in front of someone. The officer could see her squatting down, with her pants and underwear completely down, actively urinating. He was able to see the side of her buttocks. The officer testified that he could not see her vagina, but he could “actively see her urinate, and it has to come from somewhere.”
Ms. Maley Could Not Hold Her Urine
The officer did a double-take, turned his vehicle around, and was able to capture a snapshot of her with his body-worn camera (“BWC”). His BWC video was played. By the time he parked and approached her, Ms. Maley had finished and was fully clothed. Ms. Maley presented her I.D. and explained that she was 55 years old, and she could not “hold it” while waiting for the bus. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol, and Ms. Maley confirmed that she had been drinking. He believed that the consumption of alcohol played a factor in the urge to urinate.
Ms. Maley was in full view of anyone walking or driving.
Ms. Maley urinated next to a bus stop and a sidewalk near some businesses and apartment complexes. The officer testified that it was one of the most crowded areas in District 4 with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The officer did not speak with the woman standing at the bus stop. Nothing prevented anyone else in the area from viewing her. Ms. Maley was in full view of anyone walking or driving.
Ms. Maley was Cited and Did Not Miss Her Bus
The entire encounter lasted about five minutes. As the officer was writing her a citation, the bus pulled up, and he did not want her to miss the bus. The officer wrote down the information about the court date for her so she did not have to miss her bus.
Bus Stop Happy Hour
Ms. Maley testified that she had worked the third shift at the Red’s game the previous night. That afternoon, at 3:00 p.m., she went to pick up and cash her check. As she was waiting for a bus, she went to the store next to the bus stop and had some drinks with a few friends.
When Nature Called and Coordination Failed
Ms. Maley waited for the bus for forty minutes. It began to rain, and Ms. Maley had to urinate. A woman at the bus stop said she would watch her bag if Ms. Maley wanted to urinate in the bushes. Ms. Maley left her bag and began to run toward the bushes. However, she fell and urinated where she fell instead of in the bushes. At that time, the officer started screaming from across the street for her to stop urinating, but she was “already in position” and “already going.”
Stomach Concealment
The police cruiser made a U-turn, and Ms. Maley noticed that the bus was coming. One officer was mean and accused her of being drunk. The officer who wrote the ticket was nicer and said he would finish in three minutes, so she asked the bus driver if he would wait, and he agreed. Ms. Maley testified that a storm was coming and no one was around when she decided to urinate. Plus, her stomach concealed her private area, so no one could see anything.
A Bottle of Vodka and a Pink Lady
On cross-examination, Ms. Maley testified that she had purchased little bottles of liquor and a couple of beers at a store. Ms. Maley went to a tire shop where she knew the employees, and drank a bottle of vodka and a Pink Lady. Ms. Maley insisted that she was not drunk, she just had to urinate.
Avondale Food Mart and car wash, 774 Ridgeway Ave, Cincinnati.
Reading Road Tire Shop, 3230 Reading Road, Cincinnati
Trial Court Found Ms. Maley Guilty
The trial court found her guilty after finding that Ms. Maley publicly exposed her genitals when she dropped her pants and urinated at a bus stop at one of the busiest intersections in that area. The video depicted several cars passing by as she was urinating, which comports with the legal standard that her conduct was likely to be viewed by and affront others. Ms. Maley could have shielded herself from the public by entering the bushes or the business right behind her.
Public Indecency – O.R.C. §2907.09
Ms. Maley was convicted of public indecency in violation of O.R.C. §2907.09(A)(1), which requires the State to prove that Ms. Maley (1) recklessly (2) exposed her private parts (3) under circumstances in which her conduct was (a) likely to be viewed by others and (b) likely to affront others (4) not members of her household. See In re W.S., 2009-Ohio-5427, ¶ 35 (11th Dist.), citing Columbus v. Abdalla, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1861, *10 (10th Dist. Apr. 30, 1998).
What is a Private Area?
O.R.C. §2907.01(R), which applies to sections 2907.01 through 2907.38, defines “private area” as “the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast below the top of the areola, where nude or covered by an undergarment.”
[S]he argues that only her buttocks were publicly visible.
Ms. Maley first contends that the State failed to prove that her private parts were viewed or likely to be viewed by others when her stomach and shirt shielded her private areas. Ms. Maley does not dispute that she exposed her private areas, rather, she argues that only her buttocks were publicly visible “and not her genitalia.” She further contends that “someone would have to be underneath [her] on the sidewalk to be able to observe her genitalia.”
Established Case Law – Buttocks is a Private Area
Buttocks are included in the definition of “private area,” and the officer testified, and Ms. Maley concedes, that he observed the side of her buttocks. Moreover, case law confirms that viewing the buttocks is sufficient to prove the exposure of “private parts.” See In re W.S., 2009-Ohio-5427, at ¶ 38 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Butler, 1975 Ohio App. LEXIS 7269, *4 (1st Dist. Sep. 8, 1975) (where the witnesses saw Butler’s backside, “the inference of Butler’s having exposed his ‘private parts’ was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”); In re Janoch, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 82, *4 (11th Dist. Jan. 13, 1989) (the common usage and understanding of “private parts” includes the buttocks); State v. Mackie, 2011-Ohio-2102, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.), quoting Commonwealth v. Arthur, 420 Mass. 535, 537 (1995) (“defendant could not be convicted of indecent exposure when witnesses only saw defendant’s pubic hair and not his “genitalia or buttocks”).
Public Indecency – The Buttocks was Not Required to Actually have been Seen
Under the statute, the State is not required to prove that anyone actually saw the conduct, as long as the conduct was likely to be viewed by others. See State v. Briers, 2025-Ohio-5727, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.) (the analysis is whether such conduct was likely to be viewed and not whether the conduct is actually viewed); State v. Fornshell, 2021-Ohio-674, ¶ 26 (1st Dist.) (A public indecency conviction “does not necessitate a showing that an actual person witnessed the event.”); State v. Henry, 2002-Ohio7180, ¶ 70 (7th Dist.) (The state was simply required to prove that defendant’s conduct was likely to be viewed by others.).
Established Case Law – The Call of Nature is Not an Affirmative Defense to Public Indecency
Relying on City of Cleveland v. Pugh, 110 Ohio App.3d 472 (8th Dist. 1996), Ms. Maley also argues that answering the call of nature does not constitute publicly indecency. See id. at 474-475. In Pugh, the court interpreted the legislative comment which states, “[a]nswering an urgent call of nature alfresco would not be an offense if the actor takes reasonable precautions against discovery, as creating an exception to public indecency for public urination.” As this court recently discussed, this analysis has been rejected by other courts. See Briers at ¶ 19-20, citing Columbus v. Breer, 2003-Ohio-2479, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.) (“[W]e find as a matter of law that urinating in public may constitute public indecency and may be a violation of R.C. Section 2307.09. The statute is unambiguous and definite in language.”); State v. McCall, 2010-Ohio4283, ¶ 21 (9th Dist.) (noting that after Pugh was decided, the Ohio Supreme Court held that courts are “bound by the language of criminal provisions, not unofficial Legislative Service Commission Notes.”). Urinating in public may constitute public indecency, and we find no merit to Ms. Maley’s argument.
The conduct occurred at a bus stop in a location with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Here, the officer testified that he saw Ms. Maley with her pants and underwear pulled down, fully exposed, while urinating. The conduct occurred at a bus stop in a location with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The video showed several cars driving past her while she was urinating. The officer was able to view the conduct while driving down the road.
Conclusion and Holding
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found that Ms. Maley exposed her private parts in a manner that her conduct was likely to be viewed by and affront others. Based on this record, the factfinder did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice.
We overrule the first assignment of error.
Note: There was a second appeal as the judge made a clerical error on the level of misdemeanor Ms. Maley was convicted. That appeal was sustained but is not evaluated in this article. The successful second appeal had no bearing on Ms. Maley’s guilt.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Maley, 2026 – Ohio – 1540.
State v. Maley, 2026 – Ohio – 1540 was issued by the First District Appellate Court on April 30, 2026 and is binding in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Lessons Learned
Is the Buttocks a Private Part? Yes. Public Indecency O.R.C. §2907.09(A)(1) states: (1) recklessly (2) exposed her private parts. Sex Offenses General Definitions O.R.C. §2907.01(R) states: “Private area” means the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast below the top of the areola, where nude or covered by an undergarment.”. There has been established case law that confirms that exposure of the buttock’s cheek is violative of Public Indecency O.R.C. §2907.09. In this case Ms. Maley’s legal argument focused on whether her vagina was publicly exposed and she had a reasonable argument that it was not. However, that was not the end of the legal analysis as Ms. Maley’s buttocks was exposed at the bus stop.
How Public Does Public Have to be to Violate Public Indecency? A citizen does not have to actually observe the exposed private part as the court explained in this case “[T]he State is not required to prove that anyone actually saw the conduct, as long as the conduct was likely to be viewed by others.”. In this case, Ms. Maley urinated on a busy street in Cincinnati that had many pedestrians and vehicles. Consequently, her public urination was public enough to violate Public Indecency O.R.C. §2907.09. Law enforcement must articulate how the private parts of a person were exposed to the public, specifically how it was ‘likely’ to be seen by others in the area.
Pre-Sent Arms! The unidentified Cincinnati Police Officer and the Cincinnati City Attorney’s Office should be highly commended for their investigation, citation, conviction and appeal defense of Ms. Maley. Well done!
Does your agency train on Laws of Arrest?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!