Filming up women's skirts is ruled legal

[astro]

Filming up women’s skirts is ruled legal

How is this different (morally) from being a peeping tom?

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court ruled that filming up women’s skirts, though “disgusting and reprehensible,” isn’t actually against the law.

“I think that’s ridiculous,” said Jang, now 28, who lives in the Seattle area. “I feel a little bit vulnerable about it being known that it’s OK.”

The high court unanimously agreed the state’s voyeurism law “does not apply to actions taken in purely public places.”

It overturned the convictions of Sorrells and another man, Sean Glas, who was accused of taking photographs under women’s skirts at a Yakima County shopping mall.

The state’s voyeurism law protects people who are in a place where they “would have a reasonable expectation of privacy” – meaning the person could expect to be able to undress in seclusion or “be safe from hostile intrusion or surveillance.”

But the court found the law doesn’t apply to filming people in a public place, even if it’s underneath their clothes.

“It is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person’s body,” Judge Bobbe Bridge wrote

[Tars_Tarkas]

WTF!!!

[Guinastasia]

I hope it’s also legal to kick said photographer in the balls.

[samclem]

The State obviously has a poorly written voyeuerism statute.

It will be corrected. Other states take notice.

[astro]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**I hope it’s also legal to kick said photographer in the balls. **

Probably not. If he’s not doing anything illegal (per the article) you would be changed with assault, not him, if you interfered with his right to snap away at your crotch and under your skirt, so long as he’s not in your face and not touching you. Creepy isn’t it?

[Gozu_Tashoya]

Did anybody notice the part about the guy who got caught doing upskirt photography because he was using a flash? Don’t these people even think about, you know, subtlety?

Not that I condone their actions or anything, but still…

[zen101]

Still cheaper to glue mirrors to your shoes.

[TeaElle]

Another good reason to be sure that your skirt isn’t short enough to let such a thing happen.

[Omnipresent]

Whew, and all this time I thought I was doing something wrong!.

[Walloon]

For my uncle’s retirement party, we gave him a cane with a little swing-out mirror attached at the bottom.

[anya_marie]

Cretin! I’d likely deck him, anyway.

[zen101]

anya: Why do you want to hit Walloon’s uncle? I don’t think he really used his mirror cane, I think it was a joke gift.

[astro]

*Originally posted by zen101 *
**anya: Why do you want to hit Walloon’s uncle? I don’t think he really used his mirror cane, I think it was a joke gift. **

I think she’s replying to the OP.

[Michael_Ellis]

She wants to punch the OP?

[monica]

“A citizen has to be warned by clear language in a statute that particular conduct is a crime in order to be punished as a criminal,” he said. “Something can be wrong and offensive and still not be a crime.”

• the article

WTF? Whatever happened to “ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law?” Just because a criminal can’t understand unclear language doesn’t mean that what he did is ok.
“Police said Glas planned to sell the pictures to an Internet Web site that focuses on fetishes.”

• article

This is ridiculous. This guy is taking intimate pictures of women and selling them? I haven’t even let my guy go all the way up there, I don’t want complete strangers looking up my skirt.

This judge deserves to have his privacy violated. Someone better stick a camera up his judge’s robes in a public place, see how he feels then.

[cornflakes]

monica, IANAL, but I take this to mean that the law must be clearly stated, not that everyone has to have read the law.

The state’s voyeurism law protects people who are in a place where they “would have a reasonable expectation of privacy” – meaning the person could expect to be a surveillance."

But the court found the law doesn’t apply to filming people in a public place, even if it’s underneath their clothes.

So, if I read this correctly, it’s also ok to stick a fiber optic system down someone’s pants and film away, just as long as they’re in public, right?

:rolleyes:

[astro]

*Originally posted by Michael Ellis *
**She wants to punch the OP? **

No way! I can’t get to first base with her.

[rocking_chair]

i vaguely remember a man in phila who went to jail for this. he rigged up a camera in the door plate of a department store. when women would walk over the door plate they would be filmed. if my vague memory is correct they used the same arguement that they have used with peepers and filmers of women in bathrooms, hotel rooms, etc.

i’m not sure why that didn’t work in this case. unless a wind or fan catches a skirt and tosses it, i would think, that you don’t expect people looking under your skirt while walking down the street.

[Manduck]

rocking chair, that case was in Pennsylvania, and the OP’s case was in Washington. Probably the statutes are different.

[sailor]

monica, your post denotes total lack of understanding of how the judicial criminal process works. Just because something is wrong it does not mean it is illegal.