Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Florida Court: It's OK to Look up a Woman's Skirt with a Mirror, as Long as It's a Public Place
GlennSacks.com ^ | 5/20/08 | Glenn Sacks

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.]


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: feminism; perverts; ruling; voyeurism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: AFPhys

“Gigity!”


21 posted on 05/20/2008 12:54:28 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AprilfromTexas

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.


22 posted on 05/20/2008 12:55:35 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
A judge that follows the law ? Snow sighted in hell !

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.

23 posted on 05/20/2008 12:57:59 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

I’m sure the judge believes that this is a reasonable ruling, too.


24 posted on 05/20/2008 12:59:21 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AprilfromTexas
"I would think the fact that she is wearing a skirt means that she expects some privacy"

She had "some" privacy. If she wanted more, she could have worn a full length skirt. Or slacks.

25 posted on 05/20/2008 1:00:48 PM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

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.


26 posted on 05/20/2008 1:00:55 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
" 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."

Bingo.
27 posted on 05/20/2008 1:02:13 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter
It doesn’t matter whether it’s written ambiguously or not, common sense judgement should rule the day.

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.

28 posted on 05/20/2008 1:03:58 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

How about modest dressing. If it wasn’t to short their would be nothing to peek at.


29 posted on 05/20/2008 1:06:40 PM PDT by jy1297
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
"She had "some" privacy. If she wanted more, she could have worn a full length skirt. Or slacks."

I can't believe some of these responses. If she had "some" privacy, in this case, proper clothing that required a pervert with a mirror to circumvent, then of course she had a reasonable expectation of privacy! A reasonable person should conclude that she had a reasonable expectation that no one was going to be staring at her panties while she's walking around. Why is that so hard to understand? The mere fact that a perv was able to spy on her does not mean she didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone installs a camera inside your house to watch you undress, it doesn't mean you didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy just because that expectation was not actually met.
30 posted on 05/20/2008 1:08:10 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

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.


31 posted on 05/20/2008 1:10:24 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jy1297

How about arresting pervs using spying equipment? If there wasn’t a mirror involved the perv would have had nothing to look at.


32 posted on 05/20/2008 1:11:40 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

I wonder if this judge thinks she should have been wearing a burka.


33 posted on 05/20/2008 1:12:35 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

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.


34 posted on 05/20/2008 1:15:24 PM PDT by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

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?


35 posted on 05/20/2008 1:15:24 PM PDT by RedhairRedhair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

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


36 posted on 05/20/2008 1:15:50 PM PDT by jy1297
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter
But it's not a value judgment. It's not asking the judge to decide what's "fair." It's asking the judge to apply what the law is.

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).

37 posted on 05/20/2008 1:16:02 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

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!


38 posted on 05/20/2008 1:17:36 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

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.


39 posted on 05/20/2008 1:22:11 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Does this mean that even underage girls need to worry about this?


40 posted on 05/20/2008 1:22:25 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson