The Invisible Man does not have invisible clothes. This requires that he remove his clothes to be fully invisible, opposed to clothes filled by an empty void (done brilliantly in the 1940 The Invisible Man Returns). If the Invisible Man goes out in public, can he be prosecuted for indecent exposure?
Indecent exposure in California is when a person either willfully or lewdly “exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.” Cal. Penal Code § 314(1).
The Invisible Man did willfully go in public places where other persons were present while naked. The issue is whether he “exposed” himself. While he technically was naked, and if someone interacting with him knew he was naked, would that meet the statute? Alternatively, does the fact the Invisible Man cannot be seen mean he cannot “expose” himself? Would “expose” be a subjective standard in simply knowing a translucent person is naked in public? Or is it a strict liability for simply being naked in public, regardless of whether the Invisible Man is visible?
Case law does add some illumination to these questions. There must be a specific intent to expose one’s genitals as a necessary element for the offense of indecent exposure. People v. Massicot, 97 Cal. App. 4th 920 (Apr. 17, 2002). Specific intent to commit indecent exposure was found in a case where the defendant broke into a home naked, but the victim was unable to see the defendant’s genitals because he was behind a dresser. People v. Rehmeyer, 19 Cal App 4th 1758 (1993). Moreover, the gravamen of indecent exposure is the exposure and not the number of observers. People v. Smith, 209 Cal. App. 4th 910 (Oct. 1, 2012).
What does this mean for the Invisible Man? He intended to expose himself in order to not be seen. One can argue being invisible was like being behind a dresser, thus blocking the view of his entire naked body. Alternatively, the fact he is invisible and naked shows there is intent to not expose himself. This paradox illustrates the law is not designed for invisible people to be prosecuted under indecent exposure, because it creates legal impossibilities that can simultaneously meet and fail to meet legal standards of a crime.
