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.]
A pervert tries this on me and a bookshelf’s comin down on his head.
If I caught some perv pulling this crap on one of my female relatives, I would kick his sorry ass but good.
Let him go complain to the idiot judge.
Sure, a woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- the level of privacy dependent on the length of skirt she chooses to wear.
I merely agreed with the poster that the woman had the reasonable expectation of some privacy.
Except that's not the question. The question is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy at B&N. You don't. People can see you, watch you move around, observe your movements. You do not have privacy in any sense of the word.
Obviously a graduate of "It depends what your definition of is is" law school. Brudder.
I agree.
The location argument is bs and why our courts are useless servants to the public and circumvent their purpose when they go down these rabbit trails
Again, you're reading language into the statute; it doesn't ask whether the location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy against lewd acts. If your reading was correct, it would render the entire statute nonsensical because everywhere would be "private." There isn't anywhere where a person wouldn't have an expectation of privacy against lewd conduct.
Fortunately, the wording of the statute is straightforward: do you have an expectation of privacy at B&N? The answer is no. It's a public place; there's no expectation of privacy.
Actually, the definition of "reasonable," is quite clear...it means he didn't attempt to peer up the judge's daughter's skirt.
Not that it will change your mind, but you ought to take a look at a 2002 opinion from the Washington Supreme Court, which interpreted a similar statute. It’s called State v. Glas, and it discusses this very issue:
http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/wacourts/login.htm?username=wacourts&password=wacourts
I'm going to get to work on my new invention, Laser Panties! Slogan, "Why slap a peeping tom when you can blind him for life?"
This is why the European Union Constitution would cause a comminuted, compound fracture if you ever dropped a copy of it on your foot.
Next year, the Legislature can pass a law against photographing the penises of men at urinals with digital cameras. The year after that, the the Legislature can pass a law against photographing people with digital cameras held over the toilet stalls while they're taking a dump. The year after that, the the Legislature can pass a law against photographing people with digital cameras held over the toilet stalls while they're wiping their butts AFTER taking a dump. The year after that .....
...and a pair of black patent leather shoes
Big deal, so would the U.S. Code. This is about a state law, here.. what's your point ?
The point is that, by totally ignoring what is considered "reasonable" by society, you have made the word "reasonable" in any law totally irrelevant.
By your definition of "reasonable", the constitutional right against "unreasonable search" no longer prevents one cop from getting into a supine position on the ground with his head looking straight up a woman's skirt at her crotch while the other cop asks her for her name as such an action is no longer even considered a "search". Such action is now merely the right of any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes across a woman in a skirt in a public place.
If you are going to have a law, you better get it right.
I agree. Perverting the English language beyond recognition is certainly not "right".
I have made the word “reasonable” irrelevant ?
Give me a break...skip the histrionics.
“unreasonable” searches keep going back to court, sometimes to SCOTUS, to get defined and redefined.
I made NO definition of the word “reasonable”.
Unfortunately, neither did the law under which he was charged.
- 30 -
LOL... reminds me of someone, I don’t recall who, she told me that she wasn’t allowed to wear patent(sp?) leather shoes when she was a youngster because people might see up her skirt.
I always thought that was a real joke.
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.