http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80122/
This article says the Oklahoma courts have said that you have no expectation of privacy in public. A guy took pictures up a 16 year old girls legs. It is called upskirts. The court sided with the guy who took the pictures. Will somebody please tell me there is something missing from this story. You have no privacy rights at all in public. You are fair game to anyone with a camera. This can not be right.
It could be a problem with the way the statute is written, and the court is in effect saying “this is reprehensible and we do not condone the defendant’s behavior, but it’s up to the state legislature to make it illegal.” It happens from time to time.
Here’s the statute:
A. Every person who hides, waits or otherwise loiters in the vicinity of any private dwelling house, apartment building, any other place of residence, or in the vicinity of any locker room, dressing room, restroom or any other place where a person has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the unlawful and willful intent to watch, gaze, or look upon any person in a clandestine manner, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed Five thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
B. Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.
At first I thought he just took a picture of her legs, and I was gonna say I don’t really have a legal problem with that aside from thinking it’s kind of skeevy. But, apparently, he actually stuck the camera up her skirt 
:eek: I cannot comprehend how this doesn’t violate any laws.
My guess, and I haven’t read their opinion so I don’t know, is that the ruling hung on this:
“B. Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
The problem is, you generally don’t have a right of privacy, at least when out in public. Heck, half the time you don’t have one in your own home - if people can see in. Even if what the man did was skeevy, the law may not be well-thought out. By definition, it exempts him. Arguably it shouldn’t, but it does.
And the court was probably reluctant to start arguing over whether anything covered by a skirt from certain acceptable viewing angles was considered private or something, and then would have had to consider what the devil that statement meant, and then decided on - well, you get the idea.
Basically, I don’t know their exact reasoning, but I can see why they would suggest this law was not sufficient.
Likewise, in response to this…
Legal systems don’t anticipate problems well. It’s perfectly possible for legislators to sometimes goof, or not write a law. I mean, if you were going to work at your state legilsture, would really go think one day that, “gollee, we better get a law to prevent people from pointing cameras up ladie’s skirts”? No, probably not. Because it’s not something any decent man is familiar with.
An accidental violation of a right to privacy ,I can understand. But a deliberate attempt to take pictures up a skirt is something quite different. Doesn’t premeditation alter the circumstances. Plus ,you can expect the pictures to be on the internets.
At least on the Internet, I think this problem has been pretty widely reported over the last few years. But that’s probably not where these folks are getting their news, so the law as written probably does not cover this circumstance.
I guess I’m still kind of confused. Did he get a picture up her skirt from several feet away, or did he physically place the camera inside her skirt and take a picture? The latter is infinitely more disturbing and sounds like assault to me. The former is offensive, especially considering the age of the girl, but I’m not about to lose sleep over it.
Well the link is pretty worthless for information on the case.
from the link
If this description is accurate, he reached under her skirt.
I would think some kind of assault charge could be applied. Camera or no, am I allowed to reach under a 16-year old girls skirt?
Pretty much seems to be the case.
Better articles: FoxNews and The Tulsa World.
Now and forever it is the internets. Thanks to Bush.
Parsing it carefully, it seems clear that the “reasonable expectation of privacy” language applies to the person’s location (e.g. you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a restroom, but not on the street). Thus, a perv taking (or distributing :eek: ) an upskirt photo of somone out in public wouldn’t be in violation of this statute as written.
Whether he’s in violation of other laws (e.g. assualt by sticking his camera up somebody’s skirt) is a separate issue. If the prosecutor didn’t file charges under those other laws, the court would not have an opportunity to address that question.
The article said underneath. That doesn’t necessarily mean inside. (And it doesn’t mean it doesn’t, of course.) The article is not very clear.
And to answer your question, yes, you are. If you dropped your pen and it rolled over to the girl’s feet, then yes, you are allowed to reach to the space under her skirt to retrieve it. (It would, of course, be polite to excuse yourself while doing so.) If you reached up inside her skirt, however, I can’t see how that is anything less than assault.
Just a question: does every thought which runs through your head contain various imprecations against Bush? Not arguing, just asking.
I’d say I’m shocked but just a few days ago, South Korea’s Supreme Court issued a similar ruling.
No .
I have, in the past, come across discussions online about this sort of thing.
The usual method is to hide a camera in a bag, with a remote trigger or a timer. The bag and camera are oriented in such a way to allow the angle to be aimed up the skirt.
REAL hard core guys get miniature camera’s from a place like Fox’s Spy Outlet or hide camera’s in places such as floor grating or such.
Retrieving your pen while lying on your back, tongue hanging out in ‘dog getting tummy rubs’ fashion, as you gaze upwards at her tender bits will likely result in a beatdown, too.