State v.
Metzger
May 14, 1982 | KRIVOSHA, C. J.
Art. III, Bill of Rights – Sec 1. Due process and equal protection
Doctrine: A violation of a municipal ordinance in question is a criminal act. Where the ordinance in
question is criminal in nature, it is a fundamental requirement of due process of law that such criminal
ordinance be reasonably clear and definite. A statute which forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application
violates the first essential element of due process of law.
Case Summary: Metzger sought review of the judgment of the District Court, Lancaster County which
convicted him of violating Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 for indecent exposure after he was observed
standing near his apartment window naked.
Facts: Metzger lived in a garden-level apartment located in Lincoln, Nebraska. His apartment had a large
window facing a parking lot. At about 7:45 am on April 30, 1981, Metzger was observed, for about 5
seconds, standing in front of his apartment window in the nude by another resident who was parking his
car in a space directly in front of Metzger’s apartment window. The resident testified that he saw
Metzger’s body from his thighs on up. The resident called the police. The police arrived at the apartment
at around 8:00 am and saw Metzger standing in front of his window naked. His body, from mid-thighs on
up, was visible.
Metzger was charged with a violation of the Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 that states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln ... to commit any indecent, immodest or
filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see
the same.”
On appeal, defendant argued that nudity, per se, was not obscene and was a form of free expression
guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not the Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100 under which Metzger was charged and
convicted is unconstitutional due to vagueness
Ruling: The court found that it need not decide whether nudity was constitutionally guaranteed
because the court found the statute, as drafted, was so vague as to be unconstitutional. The court
reasoned that the statute was so vague as to make a person of common intelligence guess as to its
meaning and differ as to its application.
Disposition: The court found that the fact that an act was immodest did not necessarily make it illegal,
and reversed and dismissed defendant's conviction under the Lincoln Municipal Code 9.52.100.
