[connectthedots]

As the undisputed expert on the workings of the Washington State Supreme Court, I am in complete agreement with the WA Supreme Court in this case. If you want to read the opinion: Push this Puppy

They've screwed up a lot of other decisions lately, but they got this one right.

[13foxtrot]

From the Opinion:

We 'may not add language to a clear statute, even if
{this court} believes the Legislature intended something else but failed to
express it adequately.'

Amen.

[Lockbox]

Thanks for the link.

A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. RCW 9A.44.115(2) (emphasis added). The statute defines a place where a person 'would have a reasonable expectation of privacy' as either '{a} place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another;' or '{a} place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

Not a lawyer, but the line - The statute defines a place where a person 'would have a reasonable expectation of privacy' as ... ‘or '{a} place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. Sounds like the Judges got it wrong.

[glorygirl]

So what's your solution?