[paulklenk]

the court found that the voyeurism law only protects people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sounds like a court that is unable to think outside the box. A very dumb interpretation of that law, IMO.

Why not expand "in places" to include "in places and circumstances"? It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts.

[phasma proeliator]

"Outside the box"

ROTFLMAO

[San Jacinto]

Sounds like a court that is unable to think outside the box. A very dumb interpretation of that law, IMO.

Judges (at least the good ones) don't write the law, they interpret it. You would have to carefully read the statute and it's legislative history in order to have an informed opinion as to whether the Court's interpretation was "dumb".

The last thing I want is an a court of appeals to "think out of the box." I want them strictly confined to the laws and the Constitution as written, and not to issue opinions that seem right according to their own feelings or prejudices.

[Wright is right!]

"It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts."

If a female is wearing a skirt, she should have NO expectation of privacy if there are innocent ways of having other people's eyes positioned directly below her - such as on an unenclosed flight of stairs, for example. If she is next to the end of the stair treads, anyone on the flight below her can look all the way up to Toledo.

Non-enclosed flights of stairs are fave locales for the perverts who shoot these "upskirt" stills and movies. Most skirt-wearing women probably don't realize the number of situations they can be in where the skirts they're wearing don't afford privacy. Even a short skirt on a gal climbing a flight of stairs will afford a view to those behind her due to the elevation difference.

If someone makes themselves visible - wittingly or unwittingly - it isn't a crime to view what one is displaying.

Michael

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Why not expand "in places" to include "in places and circumstances"? It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts.

They already have cameras on the street corners in many Seattle suburbs. Now they can use tax dollars to install cameras in the sidewalks and create the latest "reality" TV show. Go left-coast go....straight into Big Brother's hands.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Actually, when the legislature wrote the anti-voyuerism law it wasn't very good... this, imho, is an invitation for the legislature (a dem majority, btw) to actually rewrite it and see if they can do it right this time... at least teh court didn't try to write new laws from the bench...

Also, 4 of the 9 judges are females.... ;0)

[mathurine]

Is there no decision too stupid for a judge to make. A Nobel prize for idiotic jurisprudence is in order. Where do they get these wackoes. Don't they have mothers who raised them to be right? Do they have no education. Do they not have health insurance which covers mental problems?

[Protagoras]

It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts.

Only a moron would take a camera to sneak a peek up a girls dress when the norm is skirts so short that you wouldn't even need to bend over to see whatever you wanted.

The way some of the sluts dress today, it wouldn't even be fun, they leave nothing to the imagination. And someone can just look down the front of their jeans because they are cut so low to show their tattoos and navel piercings that they ned to shave to prevent people from knowing just how close to their privates they really are.

I must be getting old, I used to enjoy girl watching.