Sounds bizarre, right? Well that’s because it is. In one of the more interesting State College crime stories of the year, the Collegian is reporting that the President of Alpha Epsilon Phi Fraternity, Jacob Newberger, is being charged with indecent exposure following an evening he spent with a woman who appeared to have had too much to drink.

The story goes like this: the woman went to a frat party (note: not at AEPi) and met a man who claimed to be president of a different fraternity and went by the name Jake. The woman and Newberger eventually left the party they met at and went back to the AEPi house. There they had a few drinks, and the last thing the woman remembers before waking up in Newberger’s room was the two of them hanging out on a living room couch. When the woman came to, she discovered that her pants were off and there were unwrapped condoms on the bedstand. The woman claims that Newberger was masturbating when she woke up, and when she asked him what happened, he said she asked him to have sex with her. She immediately left the fraternity house reported the incident to the police. Newberger offered his side of the story:

Newberger told police he tried a condom on and the girl started acting “fickle,” so he took it off. He said he put another condom on and the girl was still acting “fickle” and told him he should just masturbate.

Fickleness aside, Newberger was charged with indecent exposure and supplying alcohol to a minor, following a police questioning. I’m assuming that the minor in question is the unnamed woman, and if she is under 21, then that charge not only is applicable, but also makes a good deal of sense. The charge that doesn’t make sense if the charge of indecent exposure. The way the Collegian article reads is that the only place that Newberger was reported to be naked was in his own bedroom. If that is the case, then how is he being charged with indecent exposure? Criminal-law-lawer-source.com defines it as being “a crime that is defined as exposing one’s genitals or socially deemed ‘private parts’ (such as behind or breasts) in a public place [author’s emphasis] where others are present and may witness the act.” Last I checked, the confines of one’s OWN BEDROOM don’t qualify as public locations, therefore this charge of indecent exposure seems to be fairly ridiculous.

However, that isn’t to say that what Newberger did was correct and appropriate. He should have recognized that the woman was not in the proper state of mind to make decisions regarding where her cellphone went, let alone consenting to sexual relations. So perhaps charges are in order for Mr. Newberger, but certainly not indecent exposure, at least not in this author’s opinion.

[Photo courtesy of flickr.com]