argue the third charge should be dropped for vagueness about when the alleged exposure occurred. Witness testimony in court earlier this year claimed that Glines had been in a state of complete undress during all three incidents, which happened in the common area of the women’s locker room, with one woman saying she was shocked to see a “naked man” in the locker room, and another testifying that she could see Glines’s buttocks as they walked down the common hallway. However, none of the three complaining witnesses said they did not see Glines’s genital area, either because they removed themselves from the situation, or because the area was covered by other parts of the body.In a decision filed last Friday evening, Judge David McNamee ruled that there was no evidence Glines had exposed her genitals in the locker room, reports the Dayton Daily News. The judge noted that the case focuses on two elements: exposure of private parts, and a culpable state of mind.“The state argues that the court should subjectively determine the quality and nature of the coverage that prevents exposure of genitalia,” McNamee wrote.
