Posted on 05/20/2008 12:27:15 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
"Former teacher Brian Presken, 32, was accused of using a mirror to look under a woman's skirt last summer at Barnes & Noble Booksellers on Airport Boulevard in Pensacola.
"Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.
"The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'
"Snowden said the statute her client is charged under — 810.14 — doesn't define the phrase 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'
"Judge George J. Roark III agreed and dismissed the charge Friday afternoon."
The feminists are up in arms over this case, and at least as it is explained in this newspaper article, I can't blame them. A woman goes to a Barnes & Noble bookstore, a man apparently uses a mirror to look under her skirt, and his attorney argues that it's okay because she was in a public place and thus "didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy"?!
That is an outrageous claim, but defense attorneys say all sorts of things, so I don't worry about that too much. What is troublesome is that the judge agreed and dismissed the charges. Do they really expect us to believe that just because a woman is in a public place it is okay to use a mirror to look up her skirt?
Another interesting part of the story is this -- "Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille said the ruling will not be appealed. 'We intend to ask the Legislature in next year's session to consider amending the statute to cover situations such as what occurred in this case.'"
Here we have a quirk in the law, and the legislature will probably fix it ASAP. While I would agree with Marcille in this case, it shows you what good politics feminism is, and how quickly legislators and officials often respond to women's concerns. The full article is Voyeurism charge tossed (Pensacola News Journal, 5/17/08).
Vanessa Valenti of www.feministing.com wrote about this decision with considerable dissatisfaction in her recent blog post 'Peeping Toms' gain popularity in the courts.
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
Seems to me that every woman should expect to have the under-side of her skirt perceived as providing “a reasonable expectation of privacy”. Sheesh!
Methinks the judge is a maroon.
Is it ok to pretend to drop your change and take peek as you are picking it up?
Movie reference - John Candy in Splash.
A judge that follows the law ? Snow sighted in hell !
Isn’t there something about ‘your space ends where the next person’s begins.’ ?? The pervs have all the rights? GeezLouise.
Then it should be OK to shove the mirror down the guy’s throat.
No expectation of privacy under your skirt, huh? Well then, I guess it’s ok to grab a video camera, mirror, and start uploading upskirt vids to youtube for the world to see! The perverts are going to go nuts with this ruling. Thanks your honor.
Nice beaver!
Good news for you!
I would think the fact that she is wearing a skirt means that she expects some privacy, otherwise just go shopping in your underwear.
bonehead judge...
If by “follows the law” you mean “reinterprets ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ to mean ‘no expectation of privacy under your own clothes,’” then yes, he “followed the law.” In reality, he’s just another idiot judge who creatively interprets the law in whatever way is necessary to let the maximum number of perverts off the hook. No reasonable person would say that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy under your own clothes. If that’s true then it shouldn’t be illegal to go around lifting up skirts intentionally, as long as the person’s body is not touched. The problem is most judges don’t seem to be reasonable people.
“Shoe mirrors!” (Peewee Herman)
Thanks, I just had it stuffed this morning.
Priscilla: "I just had it stuffed!"
I see a whole new underwear line for the conservative entrepreneur.
First, black or brown underwear, not see through.
Second, a hand with a middle finger raised.
Third, they come with various comments: “If you can see this finger, you’re a perv.” “You’ll never get in here.” And the ever favorite: “F#ck You Loser.”
And for the real special occassion, shiny metallic ones that mirror back the perv’s mirror.
Waaaalllll - hold my beer...
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.