Posted on 05/12/2020 11:21:03 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes
Three judges–all men–wrote three separate but nearly identical opinions concluding it's not a crime in Tennessee to film fully clothed women without their consent if they're in public.
The issue arose in the case of an admitted sexual deviant who was convicted of unlawful photography and admitted he stalked women in retail stores and filmed their "private areas" for sexual gratification.
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judges D. Kelly Thomas Jr., James Curwood Witt Jr. and Thomas T. Woodall collectively and separately tossed out unlawful photography convictions against the Sullivan County man, who has a history of public indecency charges.
In three separate opinions, the trio reach the same conclusion: No one has a right to expect privacy in the digital age.
“Exposure to the capture of our images by cameras has become, perhaps unfortunately, a reality of daily life in our digital age,” Thomas wrote.
“When nearly every person goes about her day with a handheld device capable of taking hundreds of photographs and videos and every public place is equipped with a wide variety of surveillance equipment, it is simply not reasonable to expect that our fully-clothed images will remain totally private,” he concluded.
Thomas, Witt and Woodall agreed evidence showed David Eric Lambert intentionally filmed women for sexual gratification, took “close-up” footage of three women’s “private areas” in three separate stores, tried to hide his filming and admitted he “crossed moral boundaries.”
The three men also agreed Lambert had a string of prior misdemeanor convictions for exposing himself and committing sexual acts in public.
They acknowledged Lambert’s victims found him “creepy” even before they realized he was filming them and tried to evade him. One woman ran out of the store. Another alerted security.
But, the trio concluded, without an “expectation of privacy,” Lambert’s actions aren’t criminal.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
The expectation of privacy only applies when you want to snuff out your baby...
Sounds like criminal trespassing - the stores don’t want him in there. Except for Target, of course.
...it’s not a crime in Tennessee to film fully clothed women without their consent if they’re in public.
However, “how” you film may be a problem. e.g. stalking or “up the skirt”, etc. But yeah. It sorta hast to be legal or all photography where people are around could come under legal scrutiny. You couldn’t even take a picture of your family without worrying about who or what is in the background. And just one slip up could cost you. And things like Google Glass or the equivalent will eventually be so common people won’t even think about it.
Pedo Joe is pleased.
well played.
Correct legal decision. But I love how the story emphasizes that the judges were all MEN!!!! Oh, those evil men who uphold the law and the Constitution. BTW, someone should have just kicked this guy in the nuts a few times. That would end the problem.
I would not be surprised to find out that the creep has a map with x’s on it to mark the burial places of his victims. He bears watching, IMO.
It sounds like he’s a perv who is trying to get up as close to the legal line as possible.
Which, in that way, I concur with the judges. If I read this right, he simply took photos from a long distance at the butts, breasts, and crotches. This is different than upskirt or other forms of voyeurism where a woman is reasonably certain others will not see their private areas. By filming then in public, he’s not technically violating anything.
It’s little different than a man staring a woman’s breasts in public. It’s rude and creepy but it’s not something the law need be involved in. He could very well take full body photos with a high quality DSLR and zoom in the favored body parts.
If we made a law against what he did, that’s something he’d probably move to. What then? Ban photographs in public.
I think the line is set fairly reasonably.
In this case, the guy was getting up real close to the women and filming.
Yeah. I consider the “up close” and “filming” to be separate things. Can you legally badger people in public?
From the article: a fourth woman was checking out air fresheners at the Dollar Tree when she “felt like someone was standing really close” and turned to see a man with a “really creepy grin” holding a cell phone close to “the right side of her rear end.” She could see the image on his phone. When she protested, Grizzel testified he “grabbed the right side of her rear end and said, ‘Nice (expletive),’” before he fled
If I understand correctly, the judges ruled that touching her was illegal, but filming her close up that way was legal. Egads.
The judge is Biden’s cousin.
I have no words. How’d he survive without getting his ass kicked? Nobody gets that close to me, unless I am married to him.
Cell phones lenses are so small they are wide angle cameras, so to ‘zero in’ and anything they have to be on top of it.
I realize his behavior was annoying to the women, but taking pictures of ‘their private parts’ when they are dressed sounds silly.
Husband/boyfriend of said woman who’s being photographed; can that camera take pictures in the dark?
This is the logical result of the consequences of the legal term "reasonable expectation of privacy.
Why is anyone surprised by this?
...it's not a crime in Tennessee to film fully clothed women without their consent if they're in public.
Yeah, no ****.
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.