A surveillance video case involving feces smeared on business property raises a serious question: what could Oklahoma prosecutors charge? The facts may implicate Oklahoma property damage laws, a public-decency offense, and possibly indecent exposure. However, each theory requires proof of specific facts and intent. This post explains which Oklahoma crimes may fit, the penalties that could follow, and the defense issues that matter most.
Questions About an Oklahoma Criminal Case?
If you’re facing an unusual allegation, the label police use isn’t always the charge prosecutors eventually file. Early review can help separate shocking facts from the offense the State can actually prove. Call us at 405-633-3420 or use our secure online form.
What the Report Says Happened
According to News On 6, police were searching for a man accused of repeatedly smearing feces on a business. The report said officers described the suspect as wearing a thong and shower cap. It also alleged he defecated into a dog-waste bag before smearing feces on the business.
The incident was reported in Tulsa, and police were still seeking the suspect when the report appeared. Therefore, the public account describes allegations, not proven facts. Any criminal case would still require proof of identity, conduct, and the mental state required by the chosen law.
The Strongest Oklahoma Theory: Putting an Offensive Substance on Property
The closest statutory fit may be a specific offensive-substance property offense found in 21 O.S. § 1767.1. One part of that law covers placing a foul, poisonous, offensive, or injurious substance on or near a building or structure. However, placement alone isn’t enough. The State must also prove the required wrongful intent.
For the reported facts, prosecutors would likely focus on four points:
- The act was willful or malicious.
- A substance was placed in, on, under, against, or near a building or structure.
- The substance qualified as foul, poisonous, offensive, or injurious.
- The act was done to wrongfully injure, molest, or coerce someone, or to injure or damage another’s property.
Feces isn’t expressly named in that provision. Still, prosecutors could argue that feces fits the words “foul” or “offensive.” The harder question may be intent. Repeated smearing, targeting a particular business, or other surrounding conduct could support an inference. By contrast, accidental transfer or a different purpose could weaken that theory.
Why This Theory Could Mean a Felony
The penalty provision in 21 O.S. § 1767.2 makes a violation without personal injury a Class D1 felony. It also allows a fine of up to $10,000. Because the reported facts don’t describe personal injury, the separate injury-based punishment shouldn’t be assumed.
For a first Class D1 felony conviction, 21 O.S. § 20N allows up to five years in the Department of Corrections. Importantly, this specific theory doesn’t depend on proving $1,000 in cleanup costs. Instead, the felony classification comes from the conduct and intent described by the specific law.
Could Oklahoma’s General Vandalism Law Also Apply?
A second possibility is Oklahoma’s general vandalism or malicious-mischief offense under 21 O.S. § 1760. It covers maliciously injuring, defacing, or destroying someone else’s real or personal property. Under the 2026 version, loss under $1,000 is a misdemeanor. A loss of $1,000 or more is a Class D3 felony. Two or more prior convictions under that law can also produce Class D3 treatment regardless of value.
However, this is a general law. Oklahoma authority treats it as a fallback when a more specific malicious-mischief law controls the conduct. Therefore, prosecutors may prefer the offensive-substance provision if the evidence fits it. If that specific theory fails, the general property-damage charge may still matter.
Cleanup records can become important under the general law because value affects classification. In addition, proven cleanup losses can matter to restitution. The general law also allows the owner to pursue treble damages in a civil action. That’s separate from criminal restitution.
Could Public Defecation Become an Oklahoma Public-Decency Case?
Oklahoma also has a broad public-decency offense in 21 O.S. § 22. It reaches certain willful and wrongful acts that grossly injure property, disturb public peace or health, or openly outrage public decency. The law expressly gives public urination as an example.
Defecation isn’t expressly listed. However, the law’s wording is broader than its public-urination example. A prosecutor could argue that public defecation or feces-smearing fits the catchall language. Still, there’s an important limit. This misdemeanor applies when another law doesn’t already prescribe punishment for the conduct. Therefore, a more specific property law may control if it squarely covers the same act.
When Could Indecent Exposure Enter the Case?
The surveillance allegations also raise a possible indecent exposure issue under 21 O.S. § 1021. But bodily exposure during defecation isn’t automatically this felony. The law requires willful and knowing exposure in a lewd manner. It also requires a public place or another qualifying place where other people are present to be offended or annoyed.
Therefore, the camera angle matters. Clothing matters too. Most importantly, the State would need evidence of lewd exposure, not simply an embarrassing bodily function. A report that someone wore revealing clothing doesn’t, by itself, prove every required fact. Because this offense carries 30 days to 10 years and a $500 to $20,000 fine, the distinction can be substantial.
Why the Same Conduct Can Produce Different Charging Theories
These laws overlap, but they don’t ask exactly the same questions. The specific offensive-substance property offense focuses on what was placed and why. Meanwhile, the general vandalism offense focuses on malicious damage and loss value. The public-decency offense focuses on grossly offensive or disturbing conduct. Finally, indecent exposure requires a lewd exposure theory.
Because of those differences, prosecutors may investigate several options before filing. They also may file alternative counts when the evidence supports more than one theory. However, the defense should force each count to stand on its own elements. A shocking allegation doesn’t erase the State’s burden of proof.
The Defense Issues That Could Matter Most
Identity and Surveillance Quality
If police identify a suspect from video, the defense should examine the original footage instead of a screenshot or social-media repost. Lighting, distance, camera compression, clothing, and obstructed angles can all matter. In addition, investigators should explain how they connected the person in the footage to the accused.
Intent Is More Than the Grossness of the Act
The strongest property theory requires a wrongful purpose tied to injury, coercion, or property damage. Therefore, prosecutors can’t simply point to how disgusting the conduct appears. The defense can examine the location, repetition, timing, statements, and any relationship to the business. Those facts may support intent, or they may create a different explanation.
What Was Actually Placed, and What Did It Damage?
Lab testing may matter if the substance’s identity is disputed. Likewise, repair invoices and sanitation bills may matter under the general property-damage offense. However, the State shouldn’t get to turn an estimate into a proven loss without support. Photos, cleaning records, replacement costs, and preexisting conditions can all affect the value question.
Exposure Doesn’t Automatically Mean Lewd Exposure
For indecent exposure, the defense should separate nudity from lewdness. A camera may show skin without showing the exposure the law requires. Also, nonsexual conduct can look shocking without proving a lewd manner. That distinction deserves careful testing before a felony exposure allegation is accepted at face value.
Statements, Searches, and Police Identification
If police later identify and question a suspect, the defense should review how that happened. An unlawful stop, search, or interrogation can create suppression issues. In addition, a rushed admission may not establish the specific intent required by the property laws. Context still matters.
Key Legal Terms
Willfully
The term “willfully,” when applied to the intent behind an act or omission, means a purpose or willingness to commit it. It doesn’t require an intent to violate law, injure another, or acquire an advantage. (21 O.S. § 92) Because the specific property theory uses willful or malicious conduct, purposeful placement can matter even without knowledge of the exact law.
Maliciously
Malice and maliciously import a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person. In the malicious-mischief context, maliciously means a wish to injure property. (21 O.S. § 95 & jury instruction 5-109) Repeated targeting can support an inference of that purpose. However, the State still has to prove the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.
Knowingly
“Knowingly” means knowing the facts that bring an act or omission within Oklahoma’s criminal code. It doesn’t require knowledge that the act itself is unlawful. (21 O.S. § 96) That concept can matter if prosecutors pursue the exposure theory, which requires knowing conduct as well as willfulness and lewdness.
FAQs About Oklahoma Charges for This Type of Conduct
Can smearing an offensive substance on a business be a felony in Oklahoma?
Yes. If the State proves the elements of Oklahoma’s specific offensive-substance property offense, the charge can be a Class D1 felony even without $1,000 in property loss. However, the State still must prove the required placement and wrongful intent.
Does Oklahoma require $1,000 in damage for this property-damage crime to be a felony?
Not for the specific offensive-substance property offense. The $1,000 threshold matters under Oklahoma’s general vandalism or malicious-mischief offense. Therefore, the charging theory can matter as much as the cleanup bill.
Can public defecation support a public-decency offense in Oklahoma?
Potentially. Oklahoma’s public-decency offense expressly mentions public urination, not defecation, but its wording is broader than that example. However, a more specific criminal law may control when it directly covers the conduct.
When can exposure during public defecation become indecent exposure in Oklahoma?
Exposure during defecation isn’t automatically indecent exposure. The State must prove the kind of willful, knowing, and lewd exposure required by that offense. Therefore, video quality, what was actually exposed, the setting, and the surrounding conduct can all matter.
Can an Oklahoma property-damage crime like this be expunged?
It may be possible, depending on the final charge, disposition, prior record, and applicable waiting period. Because eligibility changes with the outcome, review the Oklahoma expungement rules that apply to your record before assuming a dismissal or conviction can be cleared.
About the Author: Attorney Frank Urbanic
This page is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every case is unique; consult an attorney about your specific situation. Law last reviewed on August 22, 2026 by attorney Frank Urbanic. Page last updated August 22, 2026. Review the statutes cited on this page for the most current version of the law.