Hot Air » Blog Archive » Oklahoma court: Women in skirts have no reasonable expectation of privacy from peeping toms in public

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 | Share on Facebook | 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.

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]

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

No! Not cleavage! Best part of my day is seeing cleavage. :-P

Tim Burton on March 13, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Vanceone, maybe the difference here is that people with the misfortune to see Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe misfunction’ weren’t intending to see her unclad, while a guy crawling around a floor at a Target is clearly trying his darndest to see whatever he can.

Mulligan on March 13, 2008 at 1:32 PM

It was the DA’s fault he charged him under the wrong law.

unseen on March 13, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Per the blog lawhawk.blogspot.com, this is the statute that he was charged under:

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.

The store is not a place that fits in the description above. I tentatively agree with unseen. He was charged under the wrong statute or the statute is not written right. If anybody finds the actual judgement I would love to read it.

mycowardice on March 13, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

You must be logged in to post a comment.