Ocala man arrested for indecent exposure at Archer Road gas station
Staff report
Updated on May 19 to correct an error in his criminal history; we misread a Marion County DUI case in which Rogers was the victim, not the defendant. We apologize for the error.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Cody Allen Rogers, 26, of Ocala, was arrested yesterday for urinating in public outside the Wawa on Archer Road.
At about 6:30 p.m. on May 10, an Alachua County Sheriff’s Deputy responded to a report that a man was exposing his genitals at Wawa (4322 SW Archer Road). The deputy reported that an off-duty Dixie County Sergeant, dressed in civilian clothes but with handcuffs, a handgun, extra magazines, and a badge on his holster, had seen a man urinating next to a vehicle in a public parking space. The Dixie County Sergeant reported that as vehicles drove by, he could see the occupants pointing and reacting to Rogers while he urinated.
The Dixie County Sergeant reportedly ordered Rogers to cover himself, and Rogers reportedly said he would do that when he was done; the Sergeant reportedly identified himself as a law enforcement officer and again ordered him to cover himself, but Rogers reportedly became “overly argumentative,” and the Sergeant handcuffed him. The Sergeant reported that when Rogers was asked why he did not go in the bathroom to urinate, Rogers said the parking lot was as good a place as any.
The responding deputy reported that there was urine on the ground next to the vehicle, and he spoke with a family member of Rogers, who said she had tried to tell him not to urinate in public. The deputy also reported that Rogers smelled like alcohol, and he had bloodshot glassy eyes and slurred speech.
Post Miranda, Rogers reportedly denied urinating in public.
Rogers has been charged with indecent exposure of sexual organs. His full criminal history is unavailable, and he has been released from the Alachua County Jail.
Articles about arrests are based on reports from law enforcement agencies. The charges listed are taken from the arrest report and/or court records and are only accusations. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
What an embarrassment to his family. No common decency. I am sure it was hard for the officer to not slap some sense in him.
He’s a real ‘pisser’ isn’t he?
Dixie county officers don’t put up with that crap.
Jurisdictional Limits and the Legal Insufficiency of Public Urination as Indecent Exposure
I. Limits of Jurisdictional Authority for Off-Duty Officers
Under Florida law, the authority of a law enforcement officer is generally limited to the geographic boundaries of their employing agency. When an officer, such as the Dixie County Sergeant in the Archer Road incident, acts outside his jurisdiction while off-duty and in civilian clothes, his official police powers are suspended.
The Doctrine of Citizen’s Arrest:
For a detention by an out-of-jurisdiction officer to be lawful, it must meet the standards of a citizen’s arrest. A private citizen may only arrest an individual who commits a felony or a breach of the peace in their presence.
Misdemeanor Restrictions:
Indecent exposure is a first-degree misdemeanor. For an off-duty officer to legally detain someone for this misdemeanor, the conduct must rise to the level of a breach of the peace, which typically involves behavior that endangers the public or disturbs the quiet of the community.
The “Color of Office” Limitation:
An out-of-jurisdiction arrest is illegal if the officer uses the “color of office” to observe conduct or gather evidence that a private citizen could not. The sources note the Sergeant identified himself as law enforcement, wore a badge on his holster, and issued official commands. If a court finds he used his official status to effect the detention rather than acting as a private citizen, any evidence obtained—including the suspect’s statements—may be suppressed.
II. The Legal Insufficiency of Public Urination for Indecent Exposure
While the act of urinating in a public parking lot is objectively offensive to many, Florida courts have consistently held that this act, by itself, is legally insufficient to support a conviction for indecent exposure of sexual organs under Florida Statute § 800.03.
The Requirement of Lewd Intent:
To secure a conviction, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with a lewd, lascivious, or sensual intent. Florida law defines this as a “wicked, lustful, unchaste, or licentious” design.
Nudity vs. Lewdness:
The Florida Supreme Court and various District Courts of Appeal have ruled that mere nudity or exposure is not enough for a guilty verdict. There must be evidence of a “sexually-oriented intent that is lustful and/or indulgent”.
Specific Precedent:
In cases such as Payne v. State and Durant v. State, Florida courts determined that urinating in public does not constitute indecent exposure as a matter of law because the primary intent is to relieve oneself rather than to achieve sexual gratification.
III. Analysis of Prosecution Sustainability
The sustainability of a prosecution for indecent exposure in this case faces significant legal hurdles based on the facts provided in the arrest report.
The Prosecutor’s Theory of Sustainability: To sustain this prosecution, the State would argue that the public nature of the act—specifically that passing drivers were “pointing and reacting”—combined with the defendant’s “overly argumentative” refusal to stop, constitutes a vulgar or indecent manner. The State might also argue that the defendant’s statement that the “parking lot was as good a place as any” shows a willful disregard for public decency.
A defense attorney would likely file a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the State cannot prove the essential element of lewd intent. Since the defendant was engaged in the act of urinating, the defense would contend the exposure was incidental to a non-sexual bodily function.
Based on existing Florida case law, a prosecution for indecent exposure based solely on the act of public urination is highly unsustainable. Unless the State can provide additional evidence of a “lustful or sensual” design, the charge is likely to be dismissed or reduced. Furthermore, if the initial detention by the out-of-jurisdiction officer is found to have violated the “color of office” doctrine or lacked a “breach of the peace” justification, the entire case may be jeopardized by the suppression of evidence.
Wonder if that off duty cop tells panhandlers to get out of street medians?
Maybe the guy would have pissed his pants if he didn’t relieve himself then & there. When nature calls!
. don’t have me serve Jury duty for this!
Poor Wawa, no matter where they are… 🙄
The officer tells him to “cover himself” but no where did it say that he or anyone else saw his sexual organs. As stated by “common sense” much of this arrest seems outside the realm of legality. It will be interesting to see if the charges are ultimately dropped and a lawsuit filed against the dixie county cop and the ACSO for their assistance in facilitating an illegal arrest.
Not picking a side just stating the obvious, so many questions need answers.
Not defending this clown, but officer, public urination is NOT indecent exposure!
The guy is a drunken moron, NOT a sex offender (case law is pretty clear on that). No need to ruin his life with a sex offense.