This is a huge situation. If the filmer is found guilty of anything that says he cannot film, this will be a landmark case in the use of cell phones and presenting them in court as evidence in a court trial.
So many times, amateur film, whether it is set up or not, has been used in court proceedings and public news media to create an opinion or a fact of an action, true or false. This will mean if you take film and try to use it or provide it for you, you can be arrested and charged with a crime. And even further, what does that do to the drive by media? They don’t carry a license to film things to present to the public any more than the 17 year old did. This could be huge as it will cause a modification on the interpretation of the first amendment the media throws back when they get caught misbehaving.
rwood
Parking lot cameras?
Bank security cameras?
ATM cameras?
I don’t think it’s going to be that dramatic a case really.
If he was charged with “eavedropping” for recording in an unmistakably public place, then yes. However, a bathroom stall, even in a “public” restroom is a place where there is a considerable expectation of privacy.
I do believe that people filming in bathroom stalls have been charged with crimes quite frequently and there hasn’t been much legal controversy over those cases.