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.

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

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.

This ruling makes absolutely no sense.

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.

Doesn’t that seem fair?

Change the law through the legislature, not the courts, Ed.

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.

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.

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

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

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’m 33 and not looking forward to the Colonoscopy in 17 years or whenever they ask for it.. :{

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

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.

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

Dude!?!
That was great.

aero on March 12, 2008 at 8:13 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

Blake on March 12, 2008 at 8:35 PM

One good beat down followed by an arrest and mandatory registration would help solve this problem.

A truly enlightened, albeit a very twisted mind!!!

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.

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!

Absolutely no disrespect to the great State of Oklahoma,
but you will be thanking your lucky stars that they are
a little overweight.

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.