Mark and Powers claimed that "numerous" instances of open sex on and near their property were attributable to the clothing-optional nature of the nearby beach. To support their contention, the
plaintiffs had subpoenaed from the sheriff's department 26 notebooks covering 10 years of patrolling at Collins Beach. But the detailed contemporaneous records showed fewer than eight such incidents in the ten year period, and on
cross examination, the longtime deputy who had entered those reports said that only one or two were in locations where they could have be seen from the property of Mark and Powers. The deputy also indicated that similar incidents
on the compulsorily clothed portion of the beach exceeded those in the clothing-optional area.In her own testimony, plaintiff Teri Powers placed the number of overt sexual incidents over the years at five, but she quickly added
that the number would probably rise to 120 if she included "hugging and kissing."
NAC's attorney Angela Stewart pointed out the statistical insignificance of the relatively small number of incidents over ten years, given the
usage figure of at least 100,000 user-days logged at the beaches in the area over that period. In light of the deputy's testimony concerning similar incidents at the clothed beach, Stewart questioned that a causal relationship with
the clothing-optional beach could be considered at all.
Testimony presented by NAC came in the form of affidavits offered to the court. Among those were the sworn statements of NAC board member Mark Storey, beach user Henry Yuan
and past president of Friends of Sauvie Island Clothing Optional Beach (FOSICOB), Frank Wells. Each testified concerning slightly different aspects of the use of Collins Beach, including long term nude use that predates the arrival
of the plaintiffs or their purchase of land on Sauvie Island. NAC's witnesses also served to establish that naturist users of the clothing optional beach view overt sexual activity there as inappropriate and a threat to the beach.
State's Attorney Bob Petersen affirmed that the State's interests in the case, though not antagonistic to naturism, did not include a defense of naturist activities. Petersen observed that it was appropriate for NAC to have become
involved, and he said he was "quite pleased" that NAC had chosen to intervene.
Was NAC justified in taking the relatively unusual step of inserting itself into the middle of a lawsuit in which it was not a named party? Attorney
Stewart has pointed out that it is usually in public hearings conducted by state agencies that bureaucrats consider matters like banning a specified activity from certain public lands. In those venues, the public is invited to
speak. Had NAC not chosen to intervene in the lawsuit, naturists would have been entirely without a voice in the process.
