(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Isaac’s conduct is the type of behavior the legislature intended to outlaw with section 709.9. His actions indicate he wanted to be observed sexually gratifying himself.
The facts of this case are straightforward. A man was masturbating outside various bedroom windows of a condominium complex. He was making sexual noises and saying sexually explicit things while rubbing or tapping the windows with one hand and masturbating with the other. The woman inside heard Isaac repeatedly say “show me your tits” and “oh, f — , I’m going to come.” Clearly, he was attempting to awaken the occupants so they might come to the window to see him. Instead, Isaac was seen by a police officer, grasping his penis with his oily hands. From these simple facts, it is fair to infer he did it for sexual purposes, even though the majority cannot imagine such a happening and rules as a matter of law Isaac would not want to show himself to the police officer.
The majority analyzes the facts through the lens of a reasonable person unaffected by the prurient thoughts and desires of a sexually deviant person. In doing so, it forecloses any possibility that someone who would engage in such behavior could also derive sexual gratification from exposing himself to a police officer and running from a pursuing officer with his penis protruding from his pants. Yet, the actions by Isaac in this case were not those of a reasonable person, but a person with a sexually perverted mind. The majority simply fails to consider that nonsexual activity in the eyes of a normal person may be sexual activity to a sexually perverted person. The approach taken by the ma*822jority places an unfair burden on the State in prosecuting the crime of indecent exposure and means the most bizarre cases of indecent exposure will likely escape prosecution, as in this case.
Isaac cannot avoid conviction by claiming the particular person who saw his penis while he was masturbating was not the intended victim.3 Cf. United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660, 665 (8th Cir.2007) (finding probable cause to arrest defendant for violating Iowa Code section 709.9 where an off-duty police officer came upon defendant masturbating while walking along a trail in a park); State v. Bauer, 337 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Iowa 1983) (holding Iowa Code section 709.9 is not unconstitutionally vague on its face where a woman observed defendant kneeling on the floor in a library facing book shelves while masturbating). As it was obvious Isaac was attempting to get the attention of the people inside, he knew or should have known his actions would cause someone to investigate by either opening the window covers or going outside. Isaac should be held responsible for the natural and foreseeable consequences of his actions.
Moreover, it is irrelevant Isaac stopped masturbating after turning toward the officer. There is evidence to suggest Isaac could view the moment the police officer saw him as an opportunity to achieve sexual gratification. Isaac was not forced to turn around and expose himself to the officer. Nothing prevented Isaac from using the same hand he was using to masturbate to place his penis back into his pants before turning around to face the officer. The trial court was completely free to conclude his failure to do so was circumstantial evidence of a perverted sexual desire to expose himself at that moment to anyone in sight. See State v. Talbert, 622 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Iowa 2001) (recognizing the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the findings of the trial court are construed liberally to uphold the result reached, and the district court’s findings of fact are binding on appeal unless not supported by substantial evidence). Similarly, it is equally understandable that a reasonable mind would conclude that a person would not engage a police officer in a pursuit to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires.
It is a fundamental tenet of law enforcement investigation that it is sometimes necessary to think like a criminal to catch a criminal. The majority not only overlooks this commonsense adage, but fails to give deference to the role of the district court as fact finder in this case. I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals and the judgment of the district court.
CADY, J., joins this dissent.
. There is no evidence to suggest Isaac knew who lived in the apartments. The women both testified they had never seen him before.