Supreme Court urged to rule that 'up-skirt' photos are legal

Spokesman-Review ^ | 6/28/02 | Richard Roesler

[CFW]

Lawyers for convicted voyeurs say women can't expect privacy in public places

OLYMPIA _ Two men caught secretly taking photographs up women's skirts appealed their felony voyeurism convictions Thursday to Washington state's court of last resort, the Supreme Court.

The men argue their victims -- one a young woman waiting in line for ice cream at a Seattle festival, the others employees at a Yakima-area shopping mall -- can't reasonably expect privacy in a public place.

Washington legislators, infuriated by the dismissal of charges in cases where victims were photographed in bedrooms and bathrooms, crafted a law in 1998 banning photographs of people without their consent in a place where they could reasonably expect privacy.

The law went on to define such a place as somewhere where one could expect to be safe from "hostile intrusion."

Prosecutors on Thursday argued that a common-sense understanding of that law suggests that a woman wearing a skirt expects privacy underneath it, and that poking a camera underneath is a hostile intrusion.

In the Yakima case, a man named Sean Tyler Glas sidled up to two women at Union Gap's Valley Mall, poked a camera underneath them, and took photos. One woman didn't realize what he was doing until she reviewed the mall's security videotape, although she felt him press up against her.

The other, a worker at the mall's Sears store, knew something was awry when Glas got behind her and she saw a camera flash from below.

Such "up-skirt" photos are a staple of Internet pornography sites, according to the Division III appeals court in Spokane, which heard Glas' appeal and upheld his conviction on two felony voyeurism counts last year.

The court is expected to issue a ruling late this summer or fall.

[mad puppy]

"voyeurism", what a lovely, harmless little word to describe what these weirdos are doing. I suspect their fun-factors might drop if everytime one of them was caught with a camera on their shoe, the people around him beat the crap out of him, stripped him down to his no doubt lacking nakedness and took some pictures of him with that shoe-cam.

[RayBob]

If I ever caught some freak doing this to my wife or daughter, he would soon be in the emergency room having corrective work done for the impromptu colonoscopy that will have been performed with his little camera.

[pikachu]

Maybe the Supremes should combine this suit with the woman who wants to have her divers license picture taken with her veil on.

[Salgak]

More appropriately, they deserve the opportunity to get a guided tour of their own G-I tract, using the shoe-cam. At least the last few feet of it, at minimum. . . .

[CFW]

Prosecutors on Thursday argued that a common-sense understanding of that law suggests that a woman wearing a skirt expects privacy underneath it, and that poking a camera underneath is a hostile intrusion.

Doh! Do ya' think?

[Consort]

Next, it will be up-kilts!

[Billthedrill]

Well, I should hope! These guys have nearly driven me out of the shoe-mirror business...

[alnick]

Lawyers for convicted voyeurs say women can't expect privacy in public places

Under a woman's skirt, whether she's in the privacy of her own home or in the Superdome, is NOT a public place.

[mc5cents]

Under a woman's skirt, whether she's in the privacy of her own home or in the Superdome, is NOT a public place.

Yes, but it is a pubic place. :-))

[cynicom]

Learn something every day. Punched it into google and there is such things going on.

[Newbomb Turk]

No kidding. If you searched under ( I like to have sex with goats that are on fire ) it would say ( Specify type of goat. )

[cynicom]

I just punched in word "upskirt". Was lot of entries of such, but being a good guy, I didnt go there.

[Ahban]

Apparently the only 'right to privacy' that statist judges care to acknowledge is the "right to privacy to have an abortion". If these women had been walking into an abortion mill and someone had taken pictures of their FACES these judges would have been quick to put the photographer in jail.

Another example of the absurdity of Godless thinking.

[AAABEST]

a guided tour of their own G-I tract, using the shoe-cam

LOL!

"Ok sir, this is your anus, now here's your colon..."

[Dog Gone]

I guess I don't get it. Unless these women aren't wearing anything under their skirts, the photos aren't going to be any "better" than the underwear ads I see every day in the local newspaper.

[Aggie Mama]

::: Smile:::: I love the fact that there are still manly men in the world. My husband would do the same thing. I think my father would use them for target practice with his big buffalo rifles. =)

[Larry Lucido]

One more reason to always wear clean underwear when you leave the house.

[Dog Gone]

Just once, I'd like a woman to try to take a photo of my crotch. I'd be flattered.

I guess it's the need for a zoom lens that is the problem...

[MJG]

This is nothing to joke about.

Women should be able to expect privacy in public places such as malls and restaurants. Do we live in a time when it is illegal to smoke in public places but legal to shoot pictures up women's skirts?

The lawyers arguing this case must not have their heads screwed on right.