CITY OF PORTLAND v. TYLER, 81 Or. App. 441 (1986)

725 P.2d 949

CITY OF PORTLAND, Appellant, v. TREASEA TYLER, aka Doshea Deon Tyler, aka Tammy Johnson, Respondent.

DA 282159-8407; CA A35924Oregon Court of Appeals.Submitted on record and brief May 16, 1986
Reversed and remanded September 24, 1986

Appeal from District Court, Multnomah County.

Frank L. Bearden, Judge.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Keith B. Rogers, Portland, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded.

Page 442

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with indecent exposure in violation of § 14.24.060 of the Portland City Code. The trial court granted her pretrial motion to dismiss on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Subsequently, this court interpreted the ordinance narrowly, holding that it is aimed at “the prohibition of public nudity or indecent exposure [which is] not intended as a protected symbolic or communicative act,” City of Portland v. Gatewood, 76 Or. App. 74, 82, 708 P.2d 615 (1985), rev den 300 Or. 477
(1986), and is intended to “protect the public from the possible disruptive effects and other negative results that public nudity could create.” 76 Or App at 80. Accordingly, the ordinance is not, as construed in Gatewood, overbroad. Whether it is unconstitutional as applied to the as yet judicially unknown facts on which the charge is based will depend on what is developed at trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Page 443