Posted on 01/27/2005 1:34:47 PM PST by ambrose
Supreme Court overturns conviction for masturbating in home
Last Updated Jan 27 2005 11:37 AM PST
CBC News
OTTAWA – The Supreme Court has overturned the indecency conviction of a B.C. man spotted masturbating near a window in his own home.
The Court's decision on Thursday is sure to be celebrated by civil rights groups who argued the conviction eroded privacy rights.
More than four years ago, neighbours saw Daryl Clark touching himself in his home in Nanaimo and called police.
When an officer arrived, he shone his flashlight at the house and Clark jumped back from the window, turning off the lights.
A court in B.C. convicted him of wilfully committing an indecent act in a public place and sentenced him to four months in jail.
His lawyer asked the Supreme Court to reject the conviction, arguing that Clark never meant to be observed and that a living room can't be considered a public place.
ping!
Owl_Eagle
”Unleash the Hogs of Peace.”
P.J. O'Rourke Parliament of Whores
Why wasn't he simply court-ordered to buy some blinds?
If the mobile home is rocking don't come knocking.
Privacy rights? The guy was doing it IN FRONT OF A WINDOW where the neighbors could see him. He had the light on, and knew the effect the light would have enough to know he should turn the light off when the police arrived.
Unnngh.
Guess they couldn't make the evidence stand up in court
Crazy Canadians!!!
"Gee, sorry neighbor, for throwing that 17 lb bowling ball thru your window while you were jerking off in plain view of my family. Hey, at least it was'nt soaked in flaming oil this time."
"A court in B.C. convicted him of wilfully committing an indecent act in a public place and sentenced him to four months in jail. "
Since when is your own home a "public place?"
Curtains! Foiled again!
ha ha ha
/s
Did they have pictures of him doing it?
If so, convict him. If not, he shouldn't be convicted.
Too many nuts and prudes out there, who either deliberately -or by mistake - think innocent actions are something else.
Did they have pictures of him doing it?
If so, convict him. If not, he shouldn't be convicted.
Too many nuts and prudes out there, who either deliberately -or by mistake - think innocent actions are something else.
Was he standing in front of his window? If so, he definitely wanted to be seen and did it on purpose. If he was sitting in a chair, or on the couch, maybe not. It says he jumped back from the window, which leads me to believe he was standing.... Putting on an exhibition for whomever might be watching. They shouldn't have called the police. They should have called their local gay bar and invited them to come over and watch. Perhaps that might discourage the man from doing it again.
So according to the B.C. court, all the area that a person can see though my window is now in the public domain?
I'm glad it was over ruled. It was setting bad law.
I wonder if a women was caught in the same situation, would it have been the same response by police?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.