I feel like the story is providing evidence not in the actual case. Because the judges are describing a person filming a fully clothed person in public, and the article keeps mentioning him sneaking into restrooms and filming private parts.
Maybe they only found public pictures on his phone, so while the women claim he was in the restroom, they can’t prove it?
The article is written in a confusing way.
From what I can gather, this guy was doing all sorts of creepy things, including exposing himself.
But, the judges considered the filming alone to be legal because he was filming the women in public places, like stores, while the women were shopping.
Here’s the problem: He would follow these women, sneak up real close, and film certain parts of their bodies.
The women were fully clothed, but he was filming their backsides, for example. He admitted to the Court that he was watching the films at home for his own gratification. Ick.