Utah Court of Appeals
Does conduct in a public parking lot automatically violate disorderly conduct ordinances? Salt Lake City v. Roberts Explained
Summary
Roberts was convicted of disorderly conduct after undercover officers observed him engaging in sexual conduct with a woman in his car parked behind flatbed trucks in a bar’s parking lot. The trial court found the conduct occurred in a place open to public view solely because it was in a public parking lot.
Analysis
In Salt Lake City v. Roberts, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when sexual conduct occurs “in a place open to public view” under municipal disorderly conduct ordinances. The case provides important guidance for practitioners defending against such charges.
Background and Facts
Undercover Salt Lake City police officers followed Roberts to a bar parking lot where he engaged in sexual conduct with a woman in his car. The officers positioned themselves behind flatbed trucks, with one crawling underneath to observe the conduct from 15-20 feet away. Roberts was parked behind the trucks in an area the officer described as “somewhat hidden” though accessible to bar patrons. The trial court convicted Roberts of disorderly conduct, finding he was “in a place open to public view” solely because the conduct occurred in a public parking lot.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three issues: whether Salt Lake City’s disorderly conduct ordinance conflicted with state law, whether the evidence supported a finding of “sexual conduct,” and most significantly, the proper interpretation of “place open to public view” under the ordinance.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed that municipal ordinances need not mirror state statutes to be valid if they share a common purpose. The court also found sufficient evidence of sexual conduct. However, regarding the “open to public view” element, the court rejected the trial court’s automatic equation of public property with public view. Instead, the court adopted a fact-intensive inquiry focusing on whether conduct is “likely to be observed by a member of the public” or “casual passerby.” The court distinguished Fourth Amendment plain view doctrine, noting that diminished privacy expectations don’t transform private spaces into public ones for disorderly conduct purposes.
Practice Implications
Roberts establishes that statutory interpretation of “place open to public view” requires case-by-case analysis rather than categorical rules based on property ownership. Practitioners should examine specific circumstances including lighting, concealment, pedestrian traffic, and the likelihood of casual observation. The decision provides a framework for challenging disorderly conduct convictions where defendants took steps to avoid public observation, even on public property.
Case Details
Case Name
Salt Lake City v. Roberts
Citation
2000 UT App 201
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 990876-CA
Date Decided
June 29, 2000
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Remanded
Holding
A public parking lot is not automatically a place open to public view under Salt Lake City’s disorderly conduct ordinance; the determination depends on whether the conduct is likely to be observed by casual members of the public.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including statutory interpretation; clearly erroneous for factual findings
Practice Tip
When challenging disorderly conduct convictions, focus on the specific circumstances surrounding visibility rather than merely the public or private nature of the property where conduct occurred.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.