Lauren Boebert could face sex crime charge under Colorado’s lewdness law

The fallout from Rep. Lauren Boebert’s humiliating ouster from a Denver theater after she aggravated fellow playgoers by vaping, dancing in her seat, taking flash pictures and engaging in mutual groping with her date may not be over.

According to a report from Newsweek, the normally attention-seeking Colorado Republican may have run afoul of a Colorado ordinance designed to clamp down on public lewdness that, if taken to the extreme, is punishable by fines and up to six months in prison – along with being classified as a sex offender.

Boebert, who has since apologized profusely for her actions a week ago while in the audience of a “Beetlejuice” performance, runs the risk that she could be charged with 18-7-301 of the Colorado criminal code.

As Newsweek’s Nick Mordowanec wrote, the law stipulates that “public indecency is a petty offense sex crime ‘ but does tend “to carry lighter penalties, though, such as 10 days in jail and/or up to $300 fines, in addition to potential probation, community service or mandatory counseling.”

But there is an outside chance of a sex offender designation that could be placed upon the 36-year-old who recently became a grandmother if she is convicted.
The report states, “In most cases, such crimes don’t lead to individuals being classified as sex offenders. The law also differs from indecent exposure, which involves an individual knowingly exposing their genitals to satisfy sexual desires. Lawyers have a difficult time proving public indecency, however, due to the broadness of the statute and the relative nature surrounding the act. Matthew Hand, a Denver-based criminal attorney, says that the law ‘is vague and overreaching.'”

In an interview with Newsweek, Hand explained, “Although a theater is a crowded public setting where ‘a lewd fondling’ could be prosecuted as public indecency, it is unlikely that brief groping, over the clothes, while seated in a dark theater, would lead to conviction. The acts need to have been ‘reasonably expected to be viewed’ by others, and a jury must be convinced of that beyond a reasonable doubt.”