Okay, I skimmed it, and I see the law is an older one, and wasn’t written in response to revenge porn. That being said, I don’t see that it was “never intended” to be used situations of consensual sex. Just like I don’t think it was some kind of trick to prosecute the tanning salon guy for child abuse - it was child abuse.
Here is the statute in question as it existed in 2015 that would be applied to Greitens:
I would imagine there is more to Greitens’ defense attorney’s anticipated case theory than “of course a woman would implicitly or explicitly have consented to a semi or full nude photograph of her while having sex in a house or hotel somewhere, because they were having sex in the first place.” Since one can limit their consent to particular sex acts without consenting to all sex acts, it’s a pretty common sense understanding that even if someone consented to any and all sex acts with a person, that certainly does not remotely constitute consent to being photographed or filmed during any part of it.
Here, though, it appeared that Greitens’ mistress was not willing to cooperate herself prior to the story being published. So, if she is subpoenaed to testify by the local prosecutor for trial and doesn’t say that she did not consent to any photograph or denies that there was a photograph at all and no photograph can be found to establish otherwise, Greitens will be acquitted.
As I understand it, the concept of whether privacy is expected is based on the public at large, not individuals. In general, if you are having sex in a private room in a private dwelling, you do have an expectation of privacy. If so, then what’s relevant is the permission part, not the privacy part.
Granted, permission can be implicit. I could see arguing that the camera was obviously placed in the room, and that she would have seen it before entering. I could see even arguing that he took out his phone and she posed for the pic, showing she was okay with it.
But arguing she had no expectation of privacy while engaged in a private sex act seems ridiculous.
Edit: I note it specifically says “in a place where privacy is expected,” not “in a situation where privacy is expected.” They’re in a private dwelling in a private bedroom. Sure seems like such a place to me.
Here’s Greitens’ lawyers’ motion to dismiss the indictment.
For a legal document, it’s actually pretty easy to follow their argument.
- The law was originally intended to protect people against Peeping Toms.
- The law doesn’t apply to people engaged in consensual acts, only to “third parties.”
- If there’s any ambiguity in the wording of the statute, the interpretation should always favor the defendant.
I don’t know if anyone is ready to accept a defense of “there’s no law against taking (semi)naked pictures of my blindfolded partner who didn’t see me pull out my phone without explicit consent,” but it’s going to be fascinating if the the judge denies the motion and lawyers have to argue their appeal in open court.
So in 1. they argue the spirit of the law and then in 2. and 3. they argue the letter of the law. Hmm.
Not surprisingly, the GOP defends Missouri governor who allegedly took nude photo of woman without her consent:
Let’s see: attack the prosecutor. Check. Call for an investigation of the investigators. Check. Invoke the ‘liberal’ boogie man. Check.
I guess they didn’t have enough evidence to prove blackmail.
“Missouri House launches impeachment probe of Greitens”
Republicans control both houses of the Missouri legislature. But, AIUI, most of them don’t particularly like Greitens. And, really, it is pretty hard to like someone who threatens his mistress with revenge porn.
In a hearing yesterday, prosecutors suggested more charges against Greitens could be on the way. Prosecutors said they only filed the first charge, related to the March 2015 incident, because they were about to hit the three year statute of limitations. They said more charges, not necessarily related to the photograph incident, were possible.
Apparently the hearing was pretty testy. I don’t know if the prosectors were just saying in general “hey, we need more time! You never know where this will go.” or if they meant they had specific suspicions of other wrongdoing. But, if the allegations of blackmail are true, then Greitens is a slime, and slimes don’t usually commit just one crime…
See ya!
(hopefully)
We’re calling it blackmail. Does it fit the crime of blackmail or extortion?
I don’t know. I’m just using the term in a colloquial sense, not as a legal term of art. IANAL. He’s only been charged under an invasion of privacy crime. So far. 
Extortion usually implies monetary value. I think blackmail is the right term.
The AP reports that, in 2015, Greitens sent political messages from the email address of a charity he founded, in possible violation of federal laws that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations’ assets from being used for political campaigning.
The Port Dispatch reports that Missouri’s Attorney General, a Republican, will be investigating Greitens’ charity, The Mission Continues.
See ya!
(hopefully)
According to news articles, the prosecutors have stated that they have no photo. A defense filing states that the witness testified in some sort of pretrial deposition that she could not say whether she saw Greitens with a phone or camera because she may have been “remembering it through a dream.” The defense also asserts that she said that she continued to see Greitens and sent him partially-nude pictures for at least a few months after the alleged blackmail photograph. If these accounts of her remarks are accurate (and the prosecution doesn’t seem to directly deny them), that seems to be a serious obstacle for the blackmail accusations.
The defense is also claiming that she previously made similar statements about a “dream” to the prosecution that were not turned over to the defense. If that holds up, that could be grounds for dismissal, I think.
Sorta sounds like they’ve given given her the payout she was seeking from the start, and, amazingly the evidence has disappeared as a result, and now everybody is happy!
Nope, no one is happy. The prosecution says the quote was out of context, the defense is leaking their motions to the media before the judge even sees them, the woman’s lawyer wants her entire deposition made public before the trial even starts, and the judge has slammed a gag order on everyone.
Meanwhile, the state legislature is scheduled to release a report on impeachment later today and the Governor’s lawyers are bitching that the judge’s gag order won’t allow them to respond to that report.
Lawmakers are being briefed on it now. Public release expected at 5:00.
Greitens is assailing the House committee report as being lies, Lies, LIES and saying he’ll be vindicated in a court of law.
This is a pretty bold statement considering 1) the Missouri legislature is 70% Republican and the investigative committee has 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats; and 2) the report won’t be released for another hour and AFAICT neither political gurus nor the media have any idea what’s in it yet.
I think at least 3 Democratic state lawmakers have called for Greitens to resign so far today.
http://www.kmov.com/story/37933907/the-latest-greitens-investigation-to-be-released-tonight
Also, Greitens’s approval rating is underwater and a plurality of Missourians think he should resign.
Report is out.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/greitens-house-committee-blackmail-allegations
The House committee, which remember is overwhelmingly Republican, found the accuser credible. Her allegations go far beyond the initial reports of a consensual affair during which Greitens took a photo without consent. What she’s alleging is now rape.
Missouri’s Republican Attorney General says the House is within its rights to impeach, but he thinks Grietens should resign instead.
Maybe in retrospect, it wasn’t a good idea to elect as governor a political novice whose only claim to fame was that he was a macho stud badass.