Indecent Exposure and Aggravated Indecent Exposure

Michigan Criminal Legal Advice – Shut up and Remain Silent

September 17, 2018 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

The idea for this article came from my associates after a week where we saw how things go bad the minute someone starts talking to the police without a lawyer (meaning before coming to us). What I want to make clear in this article is the one universal piece of legal advice that holds true in every situation: shut up. If you are being questioned by the police, always exercise your right to remain silent.

Indeed, of all the rights we have as Americans, none is waived so freely, so frequently, and so much to a person’s legal detriment, as the right to remain silent. In the real world nobody ever talks themselves out of trouble – it’s just the opposite. If you haven’t talked to the police yet, then don’t. If you already have, then we are simply left with the reality of that, and have to make the best of it.

We’ll begin by restating what is far more overlooked than obvious: you have an absolute right to remain silent. We’ll get into this more later, but the day before this article was written, I met with a client who hired me after he spoke to a police detective and was subsequently arrested and charged with a crime. Because he is a nice guy who has never been in trouble before, my client naively asked the detective if it was a good idea to be talking to him, and if he should get a lawyer first. The detective astutely replied, “I can’t tell you what to do.” Of course, my client now understands that he shouldn’t have said a word.

Dealing with an Indecent Exposure Charge in Wayne, Oakland or Macomb County

August 14, 2017 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

There is a certain amount of embarrassment that just automatically goes along with facing an Indecent Exposure or Aggravated Indecent Exposure charge. Because I handle more Indecent Exposure (IE) cases than just about anyone, at least in the Detroit area (Wayne, Oakland and Macomb County), where I practice, I know this well, having sat across the table from clients facing these charges more times than I can count. Beyond having developed an expertise in handling these cases, I have also honed a special skill in handling the clients who have to deal with these charges through the criminal court system. Some of this is attributable to my background: after earning my undergraduate degree in psychology and then going through law school, I also completed a post-graduate program in addiction studies, a rather specialized area within the broader field of psychology, and one where there is always some psycho-pathology at issue. I understand that an IE case can result from some underlying stress or trouble a person may be experiencing (and about which he may not be consciously aware), but I also know that these incidents can just “happen.” Not everything about a case has be a big deal, and my job is make sure that, to the extent possible, we keep it that way in yours.

642x361_Embarrassed_to_Visit_Your_Doctor-1 An interesting thing happened the week this article was written. In the course of meeting with a new IE client, his explanation for what led to his arrest involved circumstances a bit different from what I usually hear. It wasn’t the uniqueness of his case that struck me, but the fact that, within my office, no one even thought to ask about it. In other words, this poor guy came in, understandably embarrassed, even though he didn’t need to be, and because my staff and I see so many of these cases, neither my senior assistant, my paralegal, nor my associate attorney so much as asked what happened in his case. Once he left, my staff took his information and contacted the court where it is pending and made sure all the paperwork, including the request for the police report, was properly and quickly filed. To everyone on our end, his case was no big deal; in fact, it was just another day at the office.

Feelings of embarrassment are normal, and expected, really, but they are also useful in assessing whether a person is a risk to re-offend. Here, I kind of have to split myself in two and look at this both from the clinician’s point of view, and also from the perspective of a defense lawyer who knows how to best resolve these matters. I’ve read countless clinical assessments in these cases – some completed by court-order, others undertaken at my suggestion to help in a case (and for what it’s worth (and this it’s no great secret that a savvy lawyer would do this) if an assessment done privately comes back and is not helpful to the case, it will never see the light of day), and they can be impressive in their use of scholarly language. At the end of the day, though, the part of the assessment everyone looks to is the prognosis about whether the person is likely to engage in such behavior again, or not. And sometimes, when the Judge believes the person has been embarrassed enough, it can be enough to put any such questions to rest.

Remaining Silent in Michigan Criminal, Driver’s License Restoration and DUI cases

November 11, 2016 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

Perhaps the single best and most valuable piece of legal advice that can be given to anyone being questioned by the police is to “shut up.” Seriously, don’t say anything. In my role as a criminal, DUI and even driver’s license restoration lawyer, if I could wave a magic wand and get my clients to do just one thing, it would be to keep quiet. In this article, I want to take a quick and simple look at the value of silence, and how the natural urge to speak complicates just about everything. Chances are, if you’re reading this because you’ve been charged with a crime , a drinking and driving offense, or need to get your driver’s license back, and you’ve probably said things along the way that you’d like to take back. Although less frequently a problem in DUI cases, a situation just crossed my desk yesterday (the inspiration for this article, in fact) where someone who should not have said anything probably talked themselves right into a drunk driving charge.

raf,750x1000,075,t,5e504c_7bf03840f4.u2 In that case, the person (I will use “he/she” or “they” to avoid even a gender identification) had been in an automobile accident caused by the other driver. This person left the scene, but the other driver got the plate and the police showed up at his/her home. The person was rather drunk when the police came, and when asked about whether he/she had been drinking before driving and at the time of the accident, the person admitted to having done so, and having been drunk at the time. Subsequently, the person tested out with a rather high BAC. Although I cannot say much more, charges will be coming. The problem here is that had this person simply NOT said anything, the police would have been faced with an almost certain inability to prove that he/she was over the limit at the time of the accident, effectively killing the likelihood of a drunk driving conviction.

I see this all the time in criminal cases, as well. Let’s use an indecent exposure case for an example. Imagine the police get a call about a guy exposing himself while driving on Main Street. The caller can’t give a great description of the driver, but does give a license plate number. Running that information, they identify the car as belonging to Fred, and the police contact him. They ask Fred if he was anywhere on or near Main Street at the relevant time, and he answers “yes.” With that answer, Fred has just seriously helped the case against him. Now the police know that Fred was in the area at or around the time the caller said she was flashed. Had Fred just said nothing, the police would probably not be able to prove he was even in the area, much less that he flashed anyone. Fred, like so many people, probably had pangs of guilt and the inner turmoil of just knowing that the police “know” (knew) that he did it, so he thought it would be better to be honest. To be clear, in most cases, the police do “know.” Cops are smart, and most police officers develop a better sense of human nature than anyone in any other profession. A street cop learns to read facial expressions and body language in ways you and I will never comprehend. Still, “knowing” something is one thing, but being able to prove it is quite another.

Michigan Criminal and DUI Cases – Avoid Court-Appointed Lawyers

October 23, 2015 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

In my role as a Michigan criminal and DUI lawyer, I often wind up speaking with people whose cases are pending in courts beyond the geographic area where I practice. I have always believed that a lawyer should be relatively “local” to the court where a case is pending, and that’s why I only handle DUI and criminal cases in the Metropolitan Detroit area. In a recent conversation with a caller, the person (whose case was in a distant county) asked me whether she should spend the money for her own lawyer or just go with a court appointed lawyer. I knew that my answer was going to be “hire your own,” but I had to pause for a moment to think about how to say that without sounding “obvious.” This will be a rather short article that addresses the question “Should I spend the money for my own lawyer or just go with court-appointed, instead?”

The way for me to put it came quickly; just tell the truth – the unvarnished truth. Sometimes, we try to be diplomatic when we answer a person’s question. If someone asks how you like his or her new car, and even if you didn’t, and you also thought the color was horrible, you wouldn’t just bluntly say so! Can you imagine responding, “I think it’s kind of ugly, and man, that color looks like puke!” Instead, you’d probably just say something like, “Oh, wow, it’s nice and roomy.” My point, skipping all pretensions of diplomacy, is this: If you can, you should always hire your own lawyer. Let me explain why:

When I get back to my office and one of my staff tells me about a caller who is considering hiring me for a drunk driving or criminal case, but already has a lawyer, my gut reaction is 1 of 2 things: If the caller had hired the lawyer, chances are he or she doesn’t like what they’re hearing, and expected a better outcome; in other words, there’s a good chance that person is just someone else’s unhappy customer. Sometimes, of course, the person can be right and the old lawyer may just not be up to the task, or he or she is getting exactly what they paid for by hiring a “cheap” lawyer, but for the most part, in those situations, the problem is the client’s unmet or unrealistic expectations, rather than any supposed under-performance of the lawyer. I am rarely enthused about or interested in these cases, and most often decline to get involved unless the caller has made an obvious mistake by doing something like hiring the family friend lawyer who isn’t experienced with the kind of case at issue, or employed some kind of bargain, cut-rate lawyer who answers his or her own phone. Court-appointed lawyers, however, are an entirely different matter…
Continue reading

Finding “Value” in a Michigan Criminal, Driver’s License Restoration and DUI Lawyer

October 5, 2015 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

In some of my criminal law, DUI and driver’s license restoration articles, I have gone beyond a mere discussion about “the law” and have tried to pull back the curtain a bit, so to speak, in order to help the reader understand the real working role of the lawyer, and not just in the sense in some way that amounts to nothing more than an excuse to say “call me!” If we’re going to be brutally honest, all doctors, dentists, lawyers and even funeral directors are in business. At the end of the day, every professional offers his or her services to make a living. Sure, most of us really want to help people, but you’re not much of a professional at anything if you’re not success driven. For my part, I want to receive a rewarding fee for what I do, and in exchange feel like I’m providing a top-notch service to my client. I want to be the best at what I do. And while this all sounds great, what does it mean, and why should any of this matter to you?

If you are looking for a lawyer for a DUI or driver’s license restoration case, then you already know that the field is crowded, and there is a lot to sort through. The same thing goes for anyone facing a criminal charge and looking for a criminal lawyer. Beyond your own inquiries, you may get recommendations from friends and family. In the strongest way possible, I’d advise against just “jumping” at anyone’s recommendation, even if the lawyer who gets the endorsement is me. You should always check around on your own, read articles, see what kind of information any given lawyer has posted, and then make some phone calls. There simply is NO downside to being a smart consumer and doing your homework.

There’s an old saying to the effect that “information is power.” Actually, it’s not. At best, information is only potential power. Any real power comes from using that information to your advantage. If you go back through my blog articles, for example, especially many of those written earlier, I examine just about every legal situation a person could possibly face. Therefore, when I say “information,” I mean a lot more than meaningless prattle about being “tough” or “aggressive.” Labels, especially those we use for ourselves, fall far short of any kind of useful information. One of first things you should look for in the search for a lawyer is genuine value, and not just in terms of cost, or price. “Value,” in this sense, means importance to your life. What is the value of being able to breathe? That’s not something on which you put a price. What’s the value of winning back or keeping your driver’s license, or keeping a criminal conviction (perhaps for something like possession of marijuana) off of your record? And there’s more…
Continue reading

Michigan Driver’s License Restoration, DUI and Criminal Lawyer – Hire by Phone

August 3, 2015 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

Over the last few years, I have had an increasing number of clients retain me over the phone, before they ever even meet me or come to my office. This article, like the previous, will be another departure from my usual informational installment, because instead of talking about Metro Detroit-area DUI cases or Michigan driver’s license restoration appeals, I will examine things from my side of the desk, and the somewhat new way that I’m being hired. What’s so interesting to me is that I had nothing to do with this. I never “offered” it as an option. Instead, it grew out of this blog, more than anything else, and is really a thing of its own creation.

My website and this blog contain a lot of genuinely useful information about DUI, driver’s license restoration and criminal cases. In the criminal setting, I have a rather eclectic concentration in DUI (drunk driving), DWLS/DWLR, embezzlement and indecent exposure cases. I publish 2 articles every week, and I examine my subjects in careful detail. I write about things like the stress a person arrested for a drunk driving goes through, the experience of getting sober, and how that’s a necessary requirement to win back your driver’s license, and how embezzlement cases and indecent exposure cases work in the real world. I don’t write to impress other lawyers; my goal is to speak through the written word with the same conversational voice I have if I’m sitting across a table from someone. Apparently (and I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being rather proud of it), a lot of people identify with this.

So much so, in fact, that some years ago, it became clear that my “voice” was reaching people in a way that when they’d call my office, they were more than content to book appointments without ever talking to me first. That was certainly different, at least back then, because lawyers essentially thrive with the understanding that the way to get clients is to bring them in for the free consultation and have them “sign up.” In other words, the object of getting a new caller on the phone is to get him or her to agree to come in and “discuss” the matter further. That was never the way I operated, anyway, because I always preferred to do all my consultation stuff over the phone. I’ve been fortunate enough throughout my career to be too busy to have time to bring people in just to “kick the tires.” If you’re looking to hire a lawyer, we’ll answer your questions right when you call; there will be none of this “come on in so we can talk about it” stuff…
Continue reading

The Traffic stop in Michigan DUI, Criminal and License Cases

July 31, 2015 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

Whether it’s a drunk driving (DUI), driver’s license restoration, driving while license suspended or revoked, or even a drug possession or indecent exposure charge, the overwhelming majority of the cases I handle can trace their beginnings to the operation of a motor vehicle. Criminal and driver’s license cases as a result of something that was done in or with a car is something that I deal with every day, and almost all day long. A traffic stop can give rise to all kinds of legal issues (the most important of which is called “reasonable suspicion“), but the reality is that, beyond those issues, almost everyone I represent has found him or herself in trouble for something related to a vehicle. In driver’s license restoration cases, I help get somebody back into the driver’s seat. In all other situations, I help someone get out of trouble. In this brief article, I’ll take a step away from my usual, informational installment and take a look at things from my side of the table, as the lawyer.

Consider this: A somewhat niche and unique aspect of my practice concentrates in indecent exposure cases. Almost every exposure case that I handle has taken place in a car. And while I’ve had a few “drunk boating” cases in my career, with but a few exceptions, every DUI case that has ever come into my office originated in a 4-wheeled vehicle. In today’s world, everyone has a cellphone. The police can, and often do get a real time report of illegal activity (from a drunk driver to a driver exposing himself) from a cell phone tip. I’ve had countless cases where a tipster has remained on the phone so the police could locate a drunk driver as the caller followed him or her. “Suspicious activity” calls normally get a pretty quick police response, as well, especially in the suburbs. When you’re 19, you might wonder why anyone would be concerned about your car driving around the same neighborhood at 1 in the morning; when you’re a homeowner, you wonder what that car is up to, and when you’re the police officer who stops the car and finds a bunch of kids with alcohol and/or marijuana, you wonder how they could be so clueless.

Of course, there are legal issues involved in the pulling over of motor vehicles, but the real world truth is that very few cases ever get tossed out of Metro-Detroit courts for an illegal traffic stop. Here is the big question I get asked all the time: “Don’t the police need probable cause to pull me over?” The answer, and it may surprise you, is “No.” The police merely need a “reasonable suspicion” to pull someone over. Once you’re pulled over, they’ll need probable cause to arrest you for something, but that’s a whole different matter. The point here is that the law does not require an officer have “probable cause” to pull over a vehicle. Everything that happens thereafter, however, flows from that stop…
Continue reading

The Proper Handling of Indecent and Aggravated Indecent Exposure Charges

May 15, 2015 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

A unique and specialized part of my criminal practice involves handling Michigan indecent and aggravated indecent exposure (IE) cases in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties, as well as a few surrounding areas. I make no secret that my interest in this area springs from my undergraduate background in psychology and my post-graduate work in the field of addiction studies. Combined with my role as a criminal lawyer, I work hard in IE cases to make sure the court perceives my client as neither a dangerous criminal nor some kind of mentally unstable, mad flasher. It is very easy to go one way or the other with this; keeping the balance, however, requires a certain amount of deftness and skill, but it is absolutely necessary to produce the best outcome in any IE case.

As a general rule, most people will “over-pathologize” indecent exposure situations, especially where a man has exposed himself in order to be seen. You can get a good idea of how nearly instinctive this is if you simply describe a situation where a guy in a car exposes himself to someone (usually, but not always, a woman) and wait for someone to say “That’s sick,” or something similar. If I only had to worry about how outsiders perceive the situation, however, my job would be ridiculously simple. Instead, the most important task I have is to manage the perception of those who matter most; the prosecutor and the Judge. As I have pointed out in other articles, having a thorough knowledge of the facts of a particular case and knowing the relevant law are mere starting points for a lawyer.

In a criminal case, the best result is achieved through combining knowledge of the facts and the relevant law with the careful management of perception, science and time. This is a universal truth, and applies in every criminal case that has ever taken place and will ever take place, whether the case is resolved by a plea, a jury trial, or is thrown out of court by the Judge. To that end, it seems rather fundamental that a lawyer trying to bring about the best result in any kind of IE case needs to understand, before anything else, what underlies the behavior at issue. How can a lawyer effectively communicate to others his or her client’s situation unless he or she understands it in the first place? This is not to suggest that a lawyer should “play doctor,” or, in this case, psychologist, even if he or she is trained in that field. However, it is equally troublesome for a lawyer to simply “punt” and send the client to be evaluated by some therapist. To really make things better, knowing exactly what therapist to employ is critically important…
Continue reading

Michigan Indecent Exposure and Aggravated Indecent Exposure not “Sex Crimes”

April 25, 2014 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

Sometimes, when a person learns that a significant portion of my practice concentrates in Michigan indecent exposure cases and aggravated indecent exposure cases, he or she will say something condescending, or ask how I can deal with “sex offenders.” In this article, I want to make clear how strongly I believe indecent exposure and aggravated indecent exposure (hereafter describes as “IE” to make things easier) are not really true “sex crimes.” Perhaps the strongest way for me to do this is to be clear that I don’t handle sex crimes, but I do handle IE cases.

The term “IE cases” is broad: It can cover a whole range of behavior, from a person just being seen exposing him or herself (sometimes, negligently, or at least not intentionally), to actually intentionally exposing one’s self, as well as being caught getting “frisky,” whether alone or with another person, and a whole lot of stuff in between. At worst, IE charges result from a person wanting to “shock” another with an unsolicited visual. Almost always, there is at least some distance, and usually a physical barrier, between the performer and the audience. At best, the person making the complaint observes something not necessarily done for him or her to see.

I’ve been involved with IE cases where the man charged has offered to perform for a willing female audience through an internet listing. I’ve read exchanges of emails between the parties with the man going to great lengths to verify that the woman on the other end is an adult. The only problem in this situation is that the woman on the other end of the computer was a police detective and the agreed upon rendezvous spot was in a parking lot, with the man “performing” in his car.

However you cut it, IE cases do not involve predatory physical contact, or even the imminent threat of physical contact. IE is at the opposite end of the world from a case of groping, or rape. The whole mindset involved is very different. That’s why I don’t handle rape cases, or child molestation cases. I could never imagine trying to help a rapist get away with his crime, nor could I ever imagine defending a child molester.

Typically, a man accused of an IE crime is “acting out” as the result of some kind of pressure in his life. Sometimes, this has to do with sexual frustration at home. Other times, it does not. Whatever else, at least with my clients, an incident of IE is not done with an intent to physically harm someone else. Here, however, is where the rubber meets the road. It’s great that I know this, and that my client knows this, but the real issue is making sure the Judge understands this. And to be clear, he or she most likely will not, at least not without a lot of help from me.

I pride myself on being an honest lawyer. You can snicker about that all you want, but if the size of this blog says anything, it’s that I have a passion for what I do. It’s easy to tell people what they want to hear, but, if you have a real conscience, then you have to live with the damage caused by that. A lawyer friend of mine once joked that being honest cost him a lot of money. It might be funny, but it’s also true. And here is another thing that’s true, although it’s a somewhat cold and kind of ugly truth that most people facing an IE charge already know, or at least feel: There is a pervasive kind of “yuck” or “pervert” factor inherent in these cases, at least as far as the public is concerned. You can bring this point home real fast when you think about your boss or neighbors finding out about the charge, must less learning the underlying facts that gave rise to it. My job is to get rid of that “factor” to the extent humanly (and legally) possible.
Continue reading

Aggravated Indecent Exposure Charges in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties

March 17, 2014 | by Jeffrey J. Randa

If you’re facing a charge of aggravated indecent exposure, then you are undoubtedly under a lot of stress. This is a scary-sounding charge, and it typically comes with a healthy dose of embarrassment and regret, as well. In another indecent exposure article I wrote a few months ago, I noted that, however bad things may seem at the moment, the reality is that things won’t turn out nearly as bad as you fear, no matter how clear-cut the charge. In this article, I want to circle back to the topic of stress, because often overlooked in these cases is the fact that other stressors in your life probably account for why this whole incident happened in the first place.

This is more than just an academic exercise; as a Michigan indecent exposure lawyer, if I can establish a good connection between the actual exposure incident and something going on in your life, or at least the way you are dealing with the circumstances in your life, it can help lessen the impact this charge will have on your future. And that leads us to the really good news: You will almost certainly NOT go to jail, unless you have a bad prior record, particularly with this kind of offense. If you’re a first offender, then you can relax. A lot. I know how to make things better.

Having handled countless Michigan indecent exposure and aggravated indecent exposure charges (we’ll just say “IE” from here on out, instead of “indecent exposure” or “aggravated indecent exposure”) in my 24 years as a lawyer, I have certainly over-learned the numerous legalities involved. Beyond all of the legal stuff, however, I know that there is almost always an underlying personal crisis of sorts going on for most men who wind up facing an IE charge. And to draw any real benefit from this discussion, we can dispense with formality and political correctness and get down to the heart of the matter. Accordingly, we should begin by acknowledging the reality that the overwhelming majority of IE charges are brought against men, and not women. By the same token, if the charge arises because a complaint has been made to the police, it is almost always a woman who has made it.

The reality is that men typically don’t “flash” other men. Also, at least in my experience, the kind of men who wind up facing an IE charge usually have good jobs and decent lives. In fact, I don’t recall a single IE client who was unemployed, or in any way “down and out.” As it happens, many of my IE clients have college degrees, and some even have advanced degrees. Technical occupations, like building, engineering and industrial occupations, are common amongst my pool of IE clients. I’ve never sat across the table from a guy charged with IE client who wasn’t intelligent, gainfully employed and otherwise reasonably successful. Whatever else, IE clients are not mouth breathing smash-and-grab criminals.

Yet they sometimes feel like it. In a strange way, whatever stress leads one to commit an act of IE gets dwarfed by the stress of facing the criminal charge that follows. Here’s where we have to slow down a bit and sort things out for your personal benefit and to help in the underlying criminal case. After having done this as many times as I have, I can almost write the story in advance. The man sitting across the table for me is embarrassed beyond words. The last thing he ever thought he’d wind up doing is sitting in a lawyer’s office talking about something he cannot, in retrospect, believe that he did.

“Hindsight is always 20/20,” my mom used to say. Of course, sitting in my office and discussing how to make things go away, there is not a singly guy who, in retrospect, thinks what he did was a good idea. I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard something like “I don’t know what I was thinking,” or “I can’t believe I did that.” Despite my trying to make clear that I don’t sit in judgment, a lot of the men I see want to try and clarify to me that this act doesn’t represent who they are as a person. I know that. I have developed a concentration in IE cases in part because I truly understand that otherwise good people can sometimes act out in unfortunate ways.
Continue reading