Posted on 05/20/2008 12:27:15 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
“Gigity!”
I agree... bonehead judge.
I sure would love to have sufficient interest to examine and analyze the FL statutes that allow this ruling. I can’t believe I would agree with it, but maybe they really did write it insufficiently enough that this is actually a good ruling.
The law says "reasonable".
If using a mirror to look up women's skirts in a public place is "reasonable", then, by the same logic, it would be "reasonable" to allow a homosexual in the urinal next to yours in the "public" Men's Room to be photographing your penis with his digital camera.
I’m sure the judge believes that this is a reasonable ruling, too.
She had "some" privacy. If she wanted more, she could have worn a full length skirt. Or slacks.
It’s up to the judge to apply the law in a way that’s fair. Use some common sense, is a women in a see-through blouse and no bra expecting any privacy? This woman wasn’t wearing a see-through skirt, the perv had to actually look under it. There’s no ambiguity here at all in how the law should be applied. It doesn’t matter whether it’s written ambiguously or not, common sense judgement should rule the day. The latter is sadly lacking in the judicial branch.
I can't disagree more. It is up to the judge to apply the law as written. The judge is not entitled to substitute his value judgments for that of the legislature.
How about modest dressing. If it wasn’t to short their would be nothing to peek at.
The law as written demands a value judgement. The judge is not only entitled, they are EXPECTED to make a JUDGEMENT and decide whether the expectation was reasonable or not. A reasonable person shouldn’t have a hard time deciding against the perv in this case.
How about arresting pervs using spying equipment? If there wasn’t a mirror involved the perv would have had nothing to look at.
I wonder if this judge thinks she should have been wearing a burka.
The widely and repetitive legal use of the term “reasonable” will be tossed to the scrape bin of history where reasonableness is distorted by argumentative legal definition.
The intent of the term was to give the courts discretion to rule on the side of morality, if we had any.
Here’s a link from the local newspaper.
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008805170332
Presken was a teacher at Catholic High School in Pensacola (where he perfected his technique)
Wonder why he didn’t take a ride out to the beach where the drunks let it all hang out?
I don’t disagree with you on that point. But as one you goes up an escalator every day to go to work you should see the girls who have to hold the back of their skirts so you don’t see anything. And most of them are in private High School
Incidentally, you're focused on the wrong issue. Note how the statute is phrased (I'll bold the important part): "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."
The relevant question isn't whether she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her skirt or whatever, the law focuses on whether the location offers a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's plainly clear that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at Barnes and Noble, unlike, say, your house (which I believe you mentioned earlier in this thread).
It is beyond idiotic to expect the legislature to pass a law that outlines every possible way in which someone’s privacy is being violated so that absolutely no value judgements are involved. If they did so, all a perv has to do is figure out a method or situation not specifically covered in the law, and presto, they’re free to violate someone’s privacy! This is why value judgements on the part of the judge are necessary and desireable; not every situation can be anticipated, and the ones that can’t will demand value judgements. The only alternative is an inflated, occassionally useless bureaucracy. It’s also why we must demand reasonable judges who can exercise good judgement, what a concept!
I’m sorry, but horse dung. Since when does Barnes and Noble NOT provide a reasonable expectation that no one will try to peer up your skirt with a mirror? A reasonable judge would have to conclude that the person’s privacy was violated to such an egregious degree that they had a reasonable expectation in that location of that level of privacy. This was a freaking book store, not a strip club.
Does this mean that even underage girls need to worry about this?
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.