I hear all the time cases on the news of some guy filming ladies in the store changing rooms, they never get charged cause they’re breaking no law, which maddens me, yet these reporters broke the law?
I hear all the time cases on the news of some guy filming ladies in the store changing rooms, they never get charged cause they’re breaking no law, which maddens me, yet these reporters broke the law?
We had an incident where I work that something similar happened, abd it is in the state statutes
Okeefe and Giles filmed in a common area, so their film would not be subject. The audio is the only issue Maryland is griping about
I'm not sure what state you're living in, but in most states in which I'm familiar, that too would be violation of law.
In most states (probably all states), you can't videotape - and maybe can't audio record - somewhere where they have a clear expectation of privacy. A "changing room" or bathroom presents a clear expectation of privacy.P> In this case, it's a little more complicated. Because of the advent and subsequent ubiquity of security cameras, you may be videotaped virtually anywhere that doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is effectively anyplace that isn't bathroom or changing room or someplace similar. So, these journalists aren't in jeopardy for the videotaping, per se.
The audio portion of that tape, however, presents a different set of problems. From reading the MD law (§ 10-402), and the court rulings associated with that law, it's clear that these kids have some potential problems on their hands if, after reviewing the complaint, the prosecutor decides to move forward with the case. I'm HIGHLY doubtful that a prosecutor would abuse his discretion in a case involving these circumstances. I just don't think this is moving forward to prosecution, irrespective of ACORN's or their employee's protestations.