0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Michael Robertson is appealing to the state’s highest court saying he didn’t commit a crime when he allegedly tried to take cellphone photos up women’s dresses on the Green Line in August 2010.That “up-skirt” case included an undercover transit cop and another T passenger. The 31-year-old now faces more than two years in jail if convicted of two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person.
Massachusetts General Laws c. 272, § 105 cannot be the basis of a conviction for "upskirting" - a common term for photographing up a woman's skirt in a public place with a cell phone camera. The statute, on its face, applies to Peeping Tom activity aggravated by the use of a recording device, and does not protect clothed people in public places. This conclusion is compelled by the plain meaning of the statute's terms [pp.12-29], and by a comparison of its terms to those used in other jurisdictions across the nation [pp. 29-36]. Moreover, as a matter of constitutional due process, the statute cannot be used to prosecute such conduct because it is not clearly within its purview [pp. 36-42]. Finally, construing the statute so broadly as to encompass photography of clothed people in public venues would render it unconstitutionally overbroad, as it would potentially punish artistic and journalistic activities protected by the First Amendment and Article 16 of the Declaration of Rights [pp.42-50].
The court of appeals had determined that the statute defined two categories of "places," namely: the "traditional venue of the peeping tom" (the first subsection), and "places where one would normally remain clothed" but maintain "privacy of the person" (the second subsection). Id.;State v. Glas, 106 Wash. App. 895, 903 (2001). The Washington Supreme Court rejected this interpretation as "illogical." Glas, 147 Wash. 2d at 415. The court explained:[P]ublic places could not logically constitute locations where a person could reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. The second subsection where a person may applies to locations not normally disrobe, but if he or she did, he or she would expect a certain level of privacy. These locations could include any room in a person's domicile other than the bedroom or bathroom, such as the kitchen, living room or laundry room; a locker room where someone may undress in front of others, but not expect to have his or her picture taken; or an enclosed office where someone may close the door to breast feed or change for a bike ride commute home. Id. at 416. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute expanded the locations where a person would possess a reasonable expectation of privacy beyond those of a traditional "peeping tom," "but not so far as to include public locations." Id.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee followed suit in 2010, finding that upskirting at the mall did not violate a statute prohibiting surreptitious photography "when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy." State v. Gilliland, 2010 WL 2432014 at *4, Tenn. Crim. App. No. M2008-02767-CCA-R3-CD (Slip Copy, 2010). The courtnoted:This is not to say that photographs of the nature Appellant was making can never be a violation of [law] simply because they were taken in a place open to the public for business. There are often areas within public places where individuals would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These areas include restrooms, dressing rooms, tanning beds, private offices, etc. Id. at *4 n.l.
Guys, this is getting creepy. Can we talk about cannibalism instead?
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.
That said, no self-respecting woman would defend this schmuck.
You didn't sneak in a mention of what Linux distro he uses? For shame!
Quote from: SpukiKitty on November 08, 2013, 10:01:14 amThat said, no self-respecting woman would defend this schmuck.She is a lawyer.
Quote from: Lt. Fred on November 08, 2013, 03:58:08 pmQuote from: SpukiKitty on November 08, 2013, 10:01:14 amThat said, no self-respecting woman would defend this schmuck.She is a lawyer.Okay, out of curiosity...Why are there a lot of jokes about lawyers being monsters?
