Filming Up Women's Skirts Is Legal In Washington

kansascitychannel ^

[chance33_98]

Filming Up Women's Skirts Is Legal In Washington
Men Arrested For Shooting Up Women's Skirts

POSTED: 3:38 p.m. EDT September 19, 2002

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Photographing or videotaping up a woman's skirt in a public place doesn't violate Washington state's voyeurism law.

That's the ruling from state Supreme Court Thursday. The case involved two men arrested for shooting up women's skirts without their permission.

One case was at a mall in Union Gap in 1999, the other at the Bite of Seattle in 2000.

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

Justice Bobbe Bridge called the behavior of Sean Glas and Richard Sorrells "disgusting and reprehensible" but said it's not illegal.

[chance33_98]

Sorry, no pics :)

[mhking]

"Hold muh beer 'n watch this!" PING....

If you want on or off this list, please let me know!
This has come about after much badgering by you, my friends and extended family...

[Richard Kimball]

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

Like under their skirts, maybe?

[AdA$tra]

IMHO it is a Constitutional right

[phasma proeliator]

ROAD TRIP!

[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.

[Just another Joe]

Just another thing to lament.
In the old days they just would have been beaten, shown the town line, and told not to come back.

[dpa5923]

This ruling is asinine. People (well most people) wear clothes to conceal themselves (not completely, but somewhat). It is reasonable to assume a reasonable amount of privacy under your clothes.

This is asinine!

[phasma proeliator]

"Union Gap"

"BITE of Seattle"

.....?

[MadIvan]

IMHO it is a Constitutional right

One presumes this amendment will be repealed once they try it on your wife or girlfriend.

Regards, Ivan

[dfwgator]

In a related story, Bill Clinton is moving to Washington State.

[phasma proeliator]

"Outside the box"

ROTFLMAO

[csvset]

Dude, be careful what you ask for.

[dpa5923]

Oops, number 9 was meant for you too. :)

[csvset]

Dude, be careful what you ask for.

[dpa5923]

Oops, number 9 was meant for you too. :)

[Wondervixen]

>>IMHO it is a Constitutional right

If I ever catch someone trying to get in a position to humiliate me like that, I'LL show em a Constitutional Right AND Left with a roll of pennies tightly grasped in both hands!!!

[Little Bush]

Oh, and where shall I continue to pay my hard-earned tax dollars? Judge DumazPigMan? Ever heard of "Making Law"? Anyway, I wonder why these men need to do this? Could it be that women do not find their personalities appealing? Now how could that be?! The should be hung! (haha)