Pennsylvania woman, Jessica Lynn Weitkamp, 28, is alleged to have entered a Wal- Mart in Pennsylvania with no regard of the standard “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign. It is alleged that Ms. Weitkamp entered the Wal-Mart, nude, and casually strolled through the store’s aisles, yelling at interested onlookers and breaking $346 worth of merchandise in the process. We’ve all borne witness to many of nature’s miracles when perusing the inventory at our local Wal-Mart stores. From cutting edge fashion to the latest trends in automotive technology and design, Wal-Mart is a treasure trove of information worthy of the rise of even the most scrutinizing eyebrow. Ms. Weitkamp, if she in fact performed these alleged deeds, simplified what can normally be seen at Wally World and in doing so, ramped up the intensity levels far beyond the norm. Despite her alleged actions likely being completely accepted for those members of the “People of Wal-Mart” society, Officer Friendlies throughout our great nation may not be of the same opinion. Evidently and unfortunately for Jessie Lynn, these Pennsylvania officers did not agree with her artful expression.
In all honesty when I saw this headline I immediately thought she would need a Tampa criminal attorney, as no doubt this had to happen in a nearby village in Florida. While that could generally be a reasonable assumption, this incident is far from here geographically. What if we used our imaginations as if this did occur in Florida? What would Ms. Weitkamp be charged with? Several things.
First and most pressingly, our Tampa criminal lawyers concur that her actions would not legitimately give rise to a sex crime offense precipitating a need for reporting as a sex offender should Ms. Weitkamp be convicted of similar allegations in Florida. The most blanket of these kinds of crimes would be lewd and lascivious exhibition under Florida Statute 800.04. So why not? For Ms. Weitkamp to be guilty of this crime it would have to be proven that she intentionally masturbated, exposed her genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner, or committed a sexual act in the presence of a victim under 16 years old without making contact. Yes, there were probably kids around under 16. However, based on the facts in the report, she was merely taking a naked walk with no evidence of any of the elements to ramp her offense into a felony sex crime. More appropriate would be a charge under Florida Statute 800.03 for exposure of sexual organs. For this kind of charge to stick it must be proven that Ms. Weitkamp exposed or put on exhibit her sexual organs in public. She was naked, check. She was in public, check. She could very likely be convicted of this, a much less severe allegation in that it is only a first degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 11 months, 29 days in jail and without a sex offender registration requirement.
What about the true victim of these allegedly senseless acts? What about Wal-Mart? $346 of their product is gone for good, never to be viable again. No doubt a hit on the accounting ledger… Criminal mischief would be the charge with restitution to be recovered to repay Sam Walton’s kids for the damage done. In Florida, if it could be shown that Ms. Weitkamp willfully and maliciously damaged the property of Wal-Mart and the amount of $346 worth of damage can be shown, she could potentially be convicted of a first degree misdemeanor. Because the damage was greater $200 and less than $1,000 her crime is a first degree misdemeanor. I suppose there could be an argument for drunken and disorderly conduct, though there isn’t enough to go on in this article to make that salacious allegation. How dare you!?!?!
At the end of the day, Ms. Weitkamp isn’t likely looking at overly heavy hitting charges. In Florida I don’t believe she would be facing felony charges though I do believe her actions make for interesting reading. If you’ve been accused of a crime in the Tampa area, contact the attorneys at The Mayberry Law Firm at 813-444-7435 or at 727-771-3847 for a free consultation.