Oklahoma court: Women in skirts have no reasonable expectation of privacy from peeping toms in public
posted at 7:52 pm on March 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Special pervert bonus: The victim in the case was 16 years old.
The state Court of Criminal Appeals voted 4-1 in favor of Riccardo Gino Ferrante, who was arrested in 2006 for situating a camera underneath the girl’s skirt at a Target store and taking photographs.
Ferrante, now 34, was charged under a “Peeping Tom” statute that requires the victim to be “in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt.
In January 2007, Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert ordered Ferrante’s felony charge dismissed. That was based upon a determination that “the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy,” according to the appellate ruling issued last week.
I.e. if you’re anywhere except your own home, any random stranger can lodge a camera in your sphincter and snap away with impunity. I want to connect this story to the photo essay See-Dub links here but I’m at a loss as to how. Help me.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
So that means I would be liable for property damage and hospital bills if someone ever tried that with me?
Sekhmet on March 12, 2008 at 7:55 PM
I have a dream.
I have a dream, I wished they had phone-cameras from the late 1960’s untill the late 1980’s.
I have a dream.
Indy Conservative on March 12, 2008 at 7:59 PM
I think “in a skirt” might be said place. But that’s just me….
FYI, there’s a university which all of you have heard of which has an engineering quad linked to a science building by a bridge which is, due to not being solid metal, both see-through from underneath and a hazard to women wearing high heels. There’s a certain assumption of the engineering/science population that was made there; it’s not inaccurate, but making the bridge this way was still rather dumb.
calbear on March 12, 2008 at 7:59 PM
How about after the up-skirt feller after a blanket party.
Kini on March 12, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Now we know why Hillary wears pantsuits
Kini on March 12, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Whew!
I’m not saying anything else ;)
lorien1973 on March 12, 2008 at 8:01 PM
What about people whose houses have windows? Seems like they’re just asking for it.
JiangxiDad on March 12, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Just an extension the exposed meat argument that mullahs use isn’t it?
lorien1973 on March 12, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Are these chics standing up or sitting down ala Sharon Stone?
What if your a little person?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 8:04 PM
It’s the Sharon Stone precedent.
SouthernGent on March 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Damn you…lol. Same wavelength.
SouthernGent on March 12, 2008 at 8:06 PM
That is a fantastic point. Thank you.
JiangxiDad on March 12, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Or, as the call it in San Francisco, First Base!
ronsfi on March 12, 2008 at 8:07 PM
How is this not child pornography then? I mean: depraved adult, sneaky camera, snapshot of minor’s nether regions?
Works for me.
OR her Dad ~ now that justice has been subverted ~ goes and kicks this guy’s ass all over the Okay! state. Who’d convict him?
tree hugging sister on March 12, 2008 at 8:09 PM
with cameras so much smaller these day, perhaps the judges realized the pain was so insignificant as to be virtually unnoticeable.
JiangxiDad on March 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM
SouthernGent on March 12, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Tarheels think alike.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM
I wanna see a guy first off see me in a skirt, second try and take a pic with a shoe cam.
The yank and pull senerio always works … doesn’t matter how big or small they are.
upinak on March 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I doesn’t matter. That was gold.
malan89 on March 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM
So, somehow the courts see some imaginary “right to privacy” in the Constitution that allows women to kill unborn babies with impunity, but there is no “right to privacy” in a Target store if you’re wearing a skirt?
Heck, even if the photos weren’t up-skirt, it doesn’t even seem decent for some strange adult guy to be taking photos of a 16-year-old at all. If he had published photos of her on the internet (up-skirt or not) without parental consent, isn’t that against some law? We have to sign all kinds of forms to allow the school to be allowed to put up pics of our kids.
aero on March 12, 2008 at 8:13 PM
If a midget wears a mini-skirt, does this mean it covers the belly button only?
Indy Conservative on March 12, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Perhaps he was a gastroenterologist?
mikeyboss on March 12, 2008 at 8:14 PM
So cops can grab up your skirt now since it cannot be considered a place where you could expect privacy????
ihasurnominashun on March 12, 2008 at 8:15 PM
How do you think the Judge who was the voice of dissent feels?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Now that the justice system has had its say, I would suggest somebody blow the guy’s balls off. Another state to cross of the list. damn
JiangxiDad on March 12, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Here’s a guy taking a pic/video of 13 year old at shopping walmart.
Marc01 on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM
At least for Spitzer, there is a future after politics.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM
There must be some crime there. Sexual harassment? Copyright infringement? Something.
SoulGlo on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM
I think it would be reasonable to check what websites the judge visits
Kini on March 12, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Dude. Dude.
James OK on March 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM
If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
J. Cochran.
JiangxiDad on March 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Don’t get me started, have you heard about the judge who was masturbating in his courtroom while listening to the Defense?
True Story.
Indy Conservative on March 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Change the law through the legislature, not the courts, Ed.
I thought that was the conservative position anyway?
Look, if we want it to be illegal to photograph up people’s skirts and what not, then write a law that adds to the previous privacy statute, creating an expectation of privacy under skirts, shirts, and maybe even cleavage.
It would pass in a day and we’d all be able to avoid expanding the already unchecked rule of our judiciary overlords. Agreed?
Nessuno on March 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Oops, AP, not Ed.
My apologies to Ed, who must be horrified at the error.
Nessuno on March 12, 2008 at 8:25 PM
The judge isn’t necessarily wrong here. If no statute adequately covers this sort of behavior, the OK legislature can and should address the problem.
Bugler on March 12, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Great minds yada yada yada, Nessuno.
Bugler on March 12, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Isn’t that what was done? A law was passed (peeping tom statute) and the court has now said “nope, no expectation of privacy”
lorien1973 on March 12, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Read the story:
If your clothes isn’t expected to be private; than what, is really? Windows with their blinds open are apparently not expected to be private. Your backyard isn’t private either.
lorien1973 on March 12, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Given the number of Oklahomans who legally or otherwise carry firearms, I expect Mr. Ferrante may experience a different sort of “upskirt snapshot” should he continue to exercise his new-found rights upon the wrong mens’ daughters.
see-dubya on March 12, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I don’t like where this is headed AT ALL.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 12, 2008 at 8:28 PM
A burqa would solve this problem.
Just one more problem solved by the
cursegift of islam.Cicero43 on March 12, 2008 at 8:28 PM
On the plus side, my brand new “mirror shoe” business is going to be booming soon!
lorien1973 on March 12, 2008 at 8:30 PM
I am shocked! I am truly shocked! That this would come from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals!
This kind of mind-numbing stupidity is what you usually expect to come tumbling out of the less-than hallowed halls of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco!
pilamaye on March 12, 2008 at 8:30 PM
I hate to agree with the court here, but the fact is the perv was charged under a law that assumes the victim is in a private place. By definition, a retail store is not a private place.
It would have been much better to charge him with harassment, stalking, even child molestation. Stiffer penalties, too.
Just my opinion.
fourstringfuror on March 12, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Gary Coleman, Webster, and Tom Cruise: On their way to Oklahoma, yeeehaaaaaawwww!!!!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Lorien, I certainly don’t claim any legal expertise, but I assume the court found that the wording of the statute did not allow for its application in this case. Again, it seems to me that the best solution is for the legislature to pass a statute that specifically covers this sort of behavior.
Bugler on March 12, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Trust me, they will.
James OK on March 12, 2008 at 8:32 PM
No it wouldn’t. A burqa is open at the bottom..a camera could still be secreted…somehow.
If the area under your skirt is not private…is it pub
lic?ihasurnominashun on March 12, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Ha! I don’t doubt it for a second.
Bugler on March 12, 2008 at 8:34 PM
It’s amazing but you have all these jerkoffs who ride the escalators at malls, get behind women, and stick a camera up their skirts, and snap away. One good beat down followed by an arrest and mandatory registration would help solve this problem.
Blake on March 12, 2008 at 8:35 PM
You pretty much said it all, aero. The perversion of pedophiles meets the perversion of the constitution.
Think_b4_speaking on March 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM
It’s been a couple of years, but the WA State Supreme Court said something similar.
anne on March 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Mandatory registration? Sounds like liberal solution. The problem isn’t confined solely to pervs with cameras. Knowing how pervasive our obsession with young girls is in America, perhaps we should be teaching our daughters how to dress in a flattering but not overtly sexual way. I’m not saying that was the case here, but I see how teen girls and young women dress today, and it really makes you wonder.
Just my opinion.
fourstringfuror on March 12, 2008 at 8:42 PM
I wasn’t aware that the Mullah’s had taken over the Okla Court System… Did they need help from the Dims to do that?
On a side note… I’d hate to hear what this particular judge thinks about rape victims in short skirts.
Gartrip on March 12, 2008 at 8:47 PM
So does this mean any woman caught wearing a skirt in Oklahoma is subject to arrest for indecent exposure since the area under the skirt isn’t private?
Rip Ford on March 12, 2008 at 8:48 PM
I often complain about your unfuninness. Today Sir, I salute you.
aengus on March 12, 2008 at 8:48 PM
If the privacy charge didn’t stick, then what about lude behavior?
I would consider this on the same line as exposure, but in reverse.
Kini on March 12, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Stilettos are handy for eye-pokers of someone happens to be eye-level with your shoes.
Capitana on March 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM
HotAir? /kidding
aengus on March 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM
See-Dub is mean. M-E-A-N. As in “That pic of Sarah Jessica Parker? Isn’t her nickname ‘horse-face?’ “
inviolet on March 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Dude - shes got man hands
Kini on March 12, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Sounds like a job for super B.O.
This is a Judge that needs some quality FNC time.
Speakup on March 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM
inviolet: I just link ‘em. Does not constitute an endorsement of linked material, nor a definite pronunciation of horsefaced-ness.
PS Is she the one on the right or the left?
see-dubya on March 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
dang it…too slow with the sarah jessica parker jokes.,,
tlynch001 on March 12, 2008 at 9:18 PM
This is kind of like when residents of Justice Sutter’s hometown wanted to take his home in revenge of his public domain ruling. Someone should follow these judges’ daughters or wives around and see how he feels then. Ahh I look forward to the days when vigilante justice has a home again.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Then that means one thing, those “upskirt” video makers can now, without fear, do their videos in Oklahoma in public places without fear of arrest or felony charge and be able to post those videos on their website for viewing? Right?
sheesh…
Kokonut on March 12, 2008 at 9:24 PM
aengus on March 12, 2008 at 8:48 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 12, 2008 at 8:04 PM
What is so humorous about this story? I find it incredible sad, as a husband and father of two daughters how do I rationalize insanity? Does the tried and true moral relevance argument work here? Maybe it is time to push the F’in button and hope the apes can do a better job!
dmann on March 12, 2008 at 9:58 PM
lorien:
Yes, they passed a statute, but the court found that it didn’t apply to a public space like Target department store. They claim you didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the department store (the changing rooms or restrooms are places where there is an expectation of privacy).
Here’s the kicker:
The pervert’s lawyer thinks the law hasn’t caught up with the technology. I say the pervert hasn’t caught up with a size 10 boot for preying on 16-year olds. What gives him the right to do so?
lawhawk on March 12, 2008 at 10:02 PM
AP:
Thanks for the link!
lawhawk on March 12, 2008 at 10:02 PM
lawhawk on March 12, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Apparently the constitution.
dmann on March 12, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Now it all makes sense Hillary wears pantsuits
and not skirts because she’s PARANOID.And women
wearing nothing but pantsuits all the time will
make them extremely uptight,I think,but it sounds
good!(snark).
canopfor on March 12, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Lesson learned: if you live in Oklahoma, and your teen aged daughter is accosted by a pervert, don’t call the cops, just take care of it yourself…
SuperCool on March 12, 2008 at 10:08 PM
SuperCool on March 12, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Ahmen!
dmann on March 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Allah u are a week too late, my friend sent me an e-mail of the same pics, but from OHIO.
Lance Murdock on March 12, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Actually, that’s a good lesson for most places. You can always say, officer, he stumbled that way; he’s the one with the missing ear and he’s wearing a pair of blood-soaked khakis.
see-dubya on March 12, 2008 at 10:19 PM
The 50s.
Young Catholic Boy.
Schoolgirl in uniform.
Mirror.
Patent leather shoes.
Nun.
No police officer needed. “YEOW! MY EAR!”
inviolet on March 12, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Wow, then I guess it’s also ok for me to reciprocate and put my boot/shoe up his sphincter? Well?
4shoes on March 12, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Okay,I checked out See-Dub’s link.
I’m going to really go out on the tree branch on this one,
it could be just me,but the main reason people from Oklahoma
look a little on the heavy side,wink wink,is that it has to do with gravity,hey no laughing!
Absolutely no disrespect to the great State of Oklahoma,
but you will be thanking your lucky stars that they are
a little overweight.Reason is it could save their lives
from Tornado’s,or Al Gore if he’s in town,just sayin!
When a Tornado strikes,that axtra 3 0z. could be the difference between life or death,no really! hahahah
(Snark!)
canopfor on March 12, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Actually my dad had an experience with an invasion of privacy in Oklahoma. But it was a public restroom so he had an expectation of privacy.
Also, cowboy boots.
see-dubya on March 12, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Well, See-Dub did have Paris in that photo essay, and we all know that she just can’t pass up a good up-skirt opportunity.
AproposofNothing on March 12, 2008 at 10:30 PM
None taken!
Oh, and see-dubya, you suck!
Though, the pic of SJP was pretty hot. I would totally hit that.
But not SJP, actually. The horse, ’cause that’s how we roll in Oklahoma. That is, if we can find our junk underneath the 30oz of fat.
James OK on March 12, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I just had an idea,when Moonbats or Lefty female
protestors are at their favorite cause.
Has anybody conducted a survey as to whether or not
they wear skirts,or if there male counterparts prefer
them in pantsuits,and were is the ACLU on this!
canopfor on March 12, 2008 at 10:40 PM
They wear pants, their girlfriends wear pants, and their male associates wear evening gowns, but only on Pride Day.
SuperCool on March 12, 2008 at 10:49 PM
SuperCool on March 12, 2008 at 10:49 PM
A truly enlightened, albeit a very twisted mind!!!
dmann on March 12, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Spot on.
And wasn’t it the “right to privacy” that gave us the overturning of the anti-sodomy statute in Texas? I blame Karl Rove. Shoot, before we got these Bushitler appointed neo-troglo-cons on the Supreme Court, dad could have shot this case up the judicial chain, and within a few years, Justice Ginsburg and her sagacious liberal pals would have given Lolita a consitutionally protected, cone-shaped privacy zone right from her precious petunia all the way down to the floor, with too-tight-pants camel-toes excluded as a violation of the right to the expectation of an atmosphere of sartorial sensitivity, which would have been discovered in some penumbra or other. Oh, this irony is just killing me. In part thanks to the right to privacy, we’ve created a permissive culture in which leather clad butt-boys can show their heinies at the gay pride parade, but Lolita can’t keep some guy from sticking a camera up her skirt. I gotta go with
smellthecoffee on March 12, 2008 at 11:24 PM
All right Oklahoma, WoooHooooooooo! Yeah baby!
I joke.
Geronimo on March 12, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Dude!?!
That was great.
Geronimo on March 12, 2008 at 11:31 PM
If it’s in plain sight of the public it’s not private. If you leave your window wide open while you’re undressing and the guy walking past your house on the sidewalk stops and watches he hasn’t committed a crime. Now if you pulled the blind and he snuck up to the window to peep through, that’s a different story.
Afterimage on March 12, 2008 at 11:32 PM
I’m 33 and not looking forward to the Colonoscopy in 17 years or whenever they ask for it.. :{
Chakra Hammer on March 13, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I guess that when you go to law school you loose all ability for logical thought. The only law that will probably be enforced, will probably be against the girl’s father when he kicks butt.
Johan Klaus on March 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Cut, twist, pull. 5lbs of pressure is all it takes and POP comes right off. Gotta get all the junk at once to do it though.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 13, 2008 at 3:28 AM
cup not cut. Cutting is just too easy
MirCat on March 13, 2008 at 3:29 AM
First, I was confused how he got away with taking snaps of a 16 year old but I’m pretty sure thats the age of consent in OK, so I guess that explains the no kiddie charges.
However, I hear a lot of people suggesting that the law be changed due to it being an ‘obvious’ privacy violation, but exactly how do you change it?
Sure the guy sounds creepy by basically laying on the floor to take a peep in an open space in a person’s clothing, but if a law passes that says you can’t gaze upon what’s up a skirt, what’s to stop a girl who pulls a Sharon Stone in a makeup chair at a department store who catches you glancing in her direction from crying foul?
How exactly do you make the distinction? In both cases you looked up in a place you shouldn’t have been looking. You basically would have to put in the law that ‘as long as the girl isn’t acting “whorish”….’ which I’m guessing wouldn’t fly (and would be ridiculous)or a posture clause so make sure you are never stooped over for anything.
I suppose the closest you could get is saying ‘no cameras’ but again, fi you are out on the beach at the lake and snap a pic of a friend with some girl in the background showing more than she’d like you’d be guilty. You can cry ‘but they’d make the exception in that case!’ I wouldn’t be so sure though.
It’s times like this that make me long for the days when you could punch a dude in the jaw for crap like this and not get sued for $50 million as making some new law provisions is a much slippier slope than it sounds like.
MannyT-vA on March 13, 2008 at 6:45 AM
In a civilized culture, laws against this type of conduct are unnecessary. The proper response to this maggot would have been for her father (or brother, or an uncle) to forcefully place place his camera where the sun don’t shine. But then, that’s SO un-pc.
oldleprechaun on March 13, 2008 at 6:56 AM
I think they were skirting the real issue here….thanks, I’ll be here all week, try the veal.
Alden Pyle on March 13, 2008 at 7:09 AM
Is it a reasonable sequitor that the perp has an expectation of physical retribution from aggrieved family members?
Doesn’t that seem fair?
drjohn on March 13, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Would the ruling have been different if, instead of a skirt, it were a Burqa?
Annar on March 13, 2008 at 7:32 AM
Did anybody read the judgement here? I can’t seem to find it, but it seems the issue was the definition of a place where you had a reasonable right to privacy.
If you read the law (litterally), you see that a store isn’t such a place.
My guess is that the guy was only charged under that law, and that if you read the law, the store is not a bathroom or a changing room. It seems to me the title of this thread is not an accurate description of the verdict.
mycowardice on March 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t it possible to substitute “under clothing, e.g. a skirt” for the “place” as opposed to a Target store? I mean, if you have no expectation of privacy because you’re shopping, I guess security/police officers can look inside clothing to find shoplifted items? Search for drugs in body cavities in the parking lot without reasonable cause?
This ruling makes absolutely no sense.
cs89 on March 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Finally a plausible explanation as to why HRC doesn’t wear skirts and won’t campaign in OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklahoma.
Christine on March 13, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Actually, this ruling DOES make sense. Washington (the state) ruled the same way a while ago.
If you made it voyeurism guilty by what you saw, then anyone who saw Janet Jackson’s little incident during the superbowl is guilty of voyeurism. So, voyeur laws aren’t the best… other laws would be better.
Vanceone on March 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »