Foothills Area
Nov. 12, 12:18 p.m.
A woman passing by a convenience store in the middle of the morning—apparently in a sober, unaltered state—decided to stop there to grab some toilet paper and take a quick bathroom break … although she didn’t use the bathroom, and the toilet paper wasn’t the kind that comes on a roll, according to a Pima County Sheriff’s Department report.
A sheriff’s deputy responded to a Circle K store in a well-to-do north-side neighborhood to meet with the assistant manager, who told him a little earlier that morning, a pony-tailed young woman wearing jeans and a striped top had urinated on the wall right outside in plain sight, seemingly heedless of customers entering and exiting the business.
The deputy was given surveillance-camera footage clearly showing a striped-sweatered subject on the side of the building—quite close to the front of the building (and its main entrance), actually—as she took her jeans all the way off, bent over while fully exposing her buttocks, and urinated; she then re-donned her pants and strolled out of view.
The reportee said that previous to peeing, the woman had entered the store and headed casually for the coffee station, where she grabbed some napkins and went right back outside without buying anything. (The security footage didn’t distinctly show her wiping herself with the napkins, but one can draw conclusions.)
After patrolling the area for awhile, the deputy located the woman walking down the street somewhere south of the store and stopped her for questioning. She immediately flat-out denied wizzing on the wall, saying she was “100 percent sure” she hadn’t been at a Circle K at all that day, and she’d definitely been “somewhere else” at the time of the tinkling.
She readily agreed to go with the deputy to the convenience store so the reportee could identify her, if it were she who’d peed—which the reportee did.
The woman—who also turned out to have an outstanding a warrant from an incident in Casa Grande, and possibly another in Scottsdale— was arrested for “disorderly conduct in reference to public urinating” and taken to the Pima County Adult Detention Center.
This article appears in Dec 21-27, 2017.
Must be a busy day in the Old Pueblo when the local gendarmes have little else to do but dragnet the streets for a semi-discreet micturatrix.
Did the footage show anyone within viewing distance?
If not, how can they make a case? “Disorderly” conduct is in relation (or relative) to the existing order. Since she did not perturb or disturb it, what’s the crime? The camera–the sole witness– was not offended, as the camera did not report her.
Had she pee’d inside the store, between the aisles of over-priced merchandise I can see the viability of the charge.
Ah, the equal justice and majesty of the law that bans both poor and rich alike from peeing against the walls of Circle K’s. Corporate “Persons”: 1, flesh and blood persons: 0…
Be well.
Can someone be said to be urinating in public if there is no public present? It seems excessive to hunt the lady down and drag an otherwise private act that hurt no-one into the light. Had it been a man, I very much doubt anyone would’ve done anything at all about it.