Florida Court: It's OK to Look up a Woman's Skirt with a Mirror, as Long as It's a Public Place

"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.'

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).

[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.]

yikes...where did I say "I think" they should have used 804.15 ? I just wondered why they didn't...

You big goof. My question should have read, "What is the legal definition of a mechanical viewing device ?"

Try this with Florida's legal definition of an "imaging device"

"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.

Yeah, I know, it's a reach.

Go ahead and get the last word in, cause I'm really done. I mean it this time.

Strawman ? I don't think so. You said it.

No, I stated the fact that the legal stardard is the "reasonable person". Your substitution of the phrase "social outrage" for the legal phrase of "reasonable person" is a creation of a Strawman on your part.

( you are outraged by the decision, aren't you?)

Whether I am or not is irrelevant to the legal standard of the "reasonable person".

I paraphrased your quote: The point is that, by totally ignoring what is considered "reasonable" by society

Again, you are avoiding the actual legal phrase and definition at all cost in order to maintain the Strawman you created.

What part of "Reasonable PERSON" do you have trouble reading?

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.

"yikes...where did I say "I think" they should have used 804.15 ? I just wondered why they didn't...

Yeah, gee, there's no contradiction, there's no backpeddling mincing of words here at all. Nope. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

"Yeah, I know, it's a reach."

It's not just a reach, it's a wholesale fabrication. Now you forward peddle again to the defense of 804.15, right after you said you wondered why they didn't use it, which was in turn right after you said you didn't think they should have used it... Now you've resorted to selective word choices (and still you think my interpretation of 804.14 was somehow wrong, let alone just plain bad) in order to fabricate a new definition of "imaging device." A mirror by itself is not capable of recording, storing, or transmitting images. It does not do any one of those three things. It reflects light, and contrary to your screwed up vocabulary, a reflection off a flat mirror is not a transmission, not even close. It is at best a re-direct, but it does not send out a signal, it does not focus the light for reception at a receiver, it merely changes its course.

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.