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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
To: PercivalWalks
It's OK to Look up a Woman's Skirt with a Mirror, as Long as It's a Public Place Is a prostitute's skirt a "public place" or am I reading too much into the headline?
-pj
61
posted on
05/20/2008 5:25:41 PM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
To: Revolting cat!
Something is fishy ...
62
posted on
05/20/2008 7:36:34 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear.)
To: AFPhys
Hehehe ... I heard that too. Musta been a rumor started by a teenage boy.;D
63
posted on
05/20/2008 7:40:39 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear.)
To: Daffynition
I suppose that could be. I can’t believe anybody would even try to do such a thing... of course, I wouldn’t try to do this mirror trick, either. I may not have enough of an imagination.
64
posted on
05/20/2008 8:21:31 PM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: AFPhys
I’ll admit to being old-fashioned and with the clothes today being so revealing, one doesn’t *need* an imagination any more. I hope I live long enough to see fashion become more modest.
65
posted on
05/20/2008 8:32:22 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear.)
To: Daffynition
I didn’t know until now the origin of the term “fishnet stockings”... thanks for the education!
66
posted on
05/20/2008 8:42:03 PM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: AFPhys
I don’t believe you for a minute............
67
posted on
05/20/2008 8:52:18 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear.)
To: stylin19a
yikes...you are all over the place. we are a nation of laws, not men. Yes, precisely, and the LAW says "reasonable".
... now you want reasonable to be defined by society.
The legal standard is that of the "reasonable person", is it not?
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
Such a legal standard is based on societal norms, is it not?
The honor killing that is perfectly in keeping with the "reasonable person" in Iran is an anathema to the "reasonable person" in American society, is it not?
The question then becomes: "Is it the expectation of the 'reasonable person' that the public wearing of a garment that has been considered a traditional and even conservative form of clothing (a skirt) in Western Civilization for hundreds of years constitutes an open invitation for the public to view a woman's panties-clad crotch?"

If your answer is "Yes", then my next question is if your mother has ever worn a skirt in public.
If your answer is "Yes", then the "reasonable person" can only conclude that your mother has no problem with displaying her panties-clad crotch in public.
Therefore, I will now make the "reasonable" request that, to titillate any pervert on the Internet and to satisfy your mother's exhibitionist tendencies, that you go over to your mother's house, take a digital photo of her panties-clad crotch and post the photo on this thread.
Lest you be insulted by this request, please not that, by your own legal logic and the logic of one particular judge, to wit, Judge George J. Roark III, it is a perfectly "reasonable" request that the "reasonable person" would have no problem with.
If you have absolutely no intention of even considering that request because even you consider it is outrageous, then it is obvious that your stated opinion and that of Judge Roarke do not meet the legal standard of the "reasonable person".
68
posted on
05/20/2008 11:33:24 PM PDT
by
Polybius
To: PercivalWalks
Everybody should have a hobby, and some people just don’t like golf.
69
posted on
05/21/2008 12:00:52 AM PDT
by
Cheburashka
(Liberalism: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.)
To: Daffynition
70
posted on
05/21/2008 3:05:35 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: Publius Valerius
"Again, you're reading language into the statute; it doesn't ask whether the location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy against lewd acts."
LMFAO! Yes actually, it does.
"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."
Bull. Do you not expect to witness lewd behavior at a swinger's meeting? How about at a strip club? Those are examples of places where one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against lewd intent. Every "normal" location, like a bookstore, you DO have that expectation.
"Fortunately, the wording of the statute is straightforward: do you have an expectation of privacy at B&N? The answer is no."
Wrong question! The question is do you have the reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to lewd acts. The answer is yes.
To: stylin19a
We can dance with this all day. restating the word "reasonable" doesn't define it.
That's not the thrust of my argument. Using strawmen doesn't win you the argument. The point is that you have the reasonable expectation of privacy against lewd acts in a bookstore. The legislation does not ask whether you have the expectation of privacy against being observed, it asks whether you have the expectation of privacy against lewd acts. Just because a judge refuses to understand that, and because a state attorney is unwilling to fight through the courts to find a reasonable judge, or is similarly blind to the obviousness of how the law is supposed to be applied, does not mean this law should not have applied to this scumbag.
To: Publius Valerius
Irrelevant (your link didn’t take me to the case anyway), the law is clear. You only need to have the reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to lewd acts. Any other interpretation is inserting language into the law that isn’t there.
To: Polybius; messierhunter
Every time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in.
For the last time. I respectfully disagree with both of you. Not based on social outrage, but the law.
If 810.14 had been as well defined as
810.145 ( Video Voyeurism), we wouldn't be having this conversation, cause the perp would have been convicted.
In fact, I'm wondering why the prosecutor didn't charge him under 810.145 and try to argue a mirror as an "imaging device". Note the description of "reasonable expectation of privacy" that includes a "not limited to" caveat...
now this time, I really mean it
- 30 -
To: stylin19a
The video voyeurism law is exactly an example of why it's better to leave the law more open ended for unanticipated situations like this. A mirror is not an imaging device anymore than my reflecting telescope is an imaging device without the camera attached to it.
""Imaging device" means any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device; still camera; camcorder; motion picture camera; or any other instrument, equipment, or format capable of recording, storing, or transmitting visual images of another person"
Where in there do you see a mirror fitting? And you think MY interpretation of 810.14 was wrong? I AM disagreeing with you BASED ON THE LAW! Nowhere in 804.14 does it limit "reasonable expectation of privacy" to "privacy against being seen at all." In 804.143 it CLEARLY limits imaging device to an actual camera of some sort. 804.14 is much more broad and much more fitting.
To: stylin19a; messierhunter
Every time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in. I'm sorry that the rest of the World does not consider your personal opinion the non plus ultra of debate. Must be hard for you living with such expectations.
For the last time. I respectfully disagree with both of you. Not based on social outrage, but the law.
Strawman argument. I said nothing about "social outrage". I stated the fact that the LAW sets the legal standard of the "reasonable person" and I specifically outlined how it applies in this particular issue. Restating your personal opinion, which is backed up by one Judge in one Court, does not prove your point.
If, by your logic and Judge Roarke's logic, the "reasonable person" would consider the public wearing of a skirt as a public invitation to view a woman's crotch either with a video camera, a still camera or, for people on a limited budget, simple rolling around on the floor with their backs on an old skateboard and using nothing but their eyeballs then you should have no problem whatsoever in posting the photo that I "reasonably" requested that you post.
Call your mother. Tell her that you are coming over this morning with your digital camera. Get back to us and tell us how that went for you.
76
posted on
05/21/2008 8:46:25 AM PDT
by
Polybius
To: messierhunter
Yikes..you totally ignore the point about 804.145 clearly defining "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is not clearly defined in 804.14, and is the essence of this case being tossed.
Yet hammer me on opining that they may have had a better chance under 804.145 ?
It's not clear to me that 804.145 limits imaging device to a camera of some sort.
Imaging device" means any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device; ...
what is a mechanical viewing device ?
Honest, now I'm really done.
FreepRegards
To: PercivalWalks
I wonder if a good swift kick in the teeth would help this situation?
I had this happen at a Cracker Barrel one Sunday, by a young man who continued to follow me around the store.
My SweetBaby caught him getting things from the bottom shelf and bending all the way down to the floor.
SB pulled me away quickly and I followed him.
I was totally unaware of what was happening at the time. Until we got outside.
Our grandchildren even realized he was “up to something”....
;-)
Who would expect it in a Cracker Barrel on a Sunday morning??? ;-)
Cracker Barrel management was notified. We left and have no idea what took place after that.
78
posted on
05/21/2008 9:00:08 AM PDT
by
LadyPilgrim
((Lifted up was He to die; It is finished was His cry; Hallelujah what a Savior!!!!!! ))
To: Polybius
Strawman ? I don't think so. You said it. Me using social outrage, ( you are outraged by the decision, aren't you?) I paraphrased your quote: The point is that, by totally ignoring what is considered "reasonable" by society
actually, the "reasonable person" standard and "reasonable expectation of privacy" are legally two different things.
FreepRegards.
To: stylin19a
"Yikes..you totally ignore the point about 804.145 clearly defining "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is not clearly defined in 804.14, and is the essence of this case being tossed."
LOL! You think it helps your case that the law YOU think they should have used defines reasonable expectation of privacy to a higher degree and standard than the law they actually used? Insanity, pure insanity. 804.14 gives no strict definition of the reasonable expectation, that's somewhat open to interpretation by what should be a reasonable judge. 804.145, however, does give strict definitions on all its terms, and anything outside those strict definitions is not in violation of the law. I'm somewhat surprised you don't know what a mechanical imaging device is - you've never seen one of these before? And I thought I was young...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson