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.

[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.

[connectthedots]

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.

This is a statement that usually cannot be said about the WA Supreme Court. They regularly make sh!t up all the time. Hardly better than the Florida Supreme Court.

The best justice on the WA SC is Richard Sanders, who clearly attempts to protect the rights of Washington citizens more than any other justice. Most of the rest are nothing more than apologists for the state.

[connectthedots]

Too bad the WA SC does have that same view on every case. It regularly contorts the law from what the statutory language reads, especially if the misconstruction favors the state against its citizens.

[connectthedots]

That's the exact reasoning used by the court. See post #59 for the link to the opinion.

[petuniasevan]

So it's okay for disgusting slime to film up women's skirts in Washington State?

How about an additional WA Supreme Court ruling?

"There shall be no law or stigma attached to said women's right to enlist passersby in the beating of said slime."

Rail, tar, and feathers to be included in the above ruling.

[San Jacinto]

They regularly make sh!t up all the time.

LOL! Now, that is definitely a trait we do not want to see in the high court.

[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?

[jennyp]

Have you seen this?

Heard the headlines. I basically traded in my skirts for jeans 10 years ago. But every once in a while I wonder if I should break down & start wearing skirts & dresses again. Maybe this'll cure me for good!

[cherry]

"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.:

you are the biggest loser I have ever heard of....guess we know where you get your jollies...

Imo ...me who need to go to such extents to get their thrills are probably impotent or close to it, that or very under-endowed and they think somehow their adolescent behavior makes up for it...

your ideas have consequences...just hope your dtrs if you have any...which I hope you don't....hope they don't pay for your stupidity....

[Happygal]

(Haven't read all the responses here)
But any *Man* (can't say I'd call 'em a man, but by gender I guess I've no alternative) caught filming up my skirt would...
A) wear their scrotum as a wart (because that's what I would do to them) and...

B) Be wondering how to do wheelies while paraplegic (because that's what my Daddy would do to them)

'Nuff said.
I'm Irish.
Don't f**k wid the familee and all that. ;-)

[chance33_98]

'Nuff said. I'm Irish.

My wife is Irish and jewish I believe (She was adopted and no one knows for sure, but jewish friends swear she is jewish but with red hair and green eyes...) She said she would do things I could not repeat on here but they were similar to what you proposedm although circumcision with hedge clippers were mentioned.

If any one tried this on my daughter I would bring out the gimp (new pics of daughter on profile page BTW).

[Billthedrill]

Oh, man. I'm never gonna feel safe in my skirt again in this town...

[Happygal]

Your wife must have a bit of sassy Irish in her.
We injure first, ask questions after.

And who would convict an Irish lass in a court of law.

Isn't the 'Celtic gleam of murder' a defence these days?

[Vicki]

If you notice the guy filming up your dress, you cannot slap him. You will face assault charges.

So these perverts can slink around, film up your dress and make money by posting it on the internet.

The Supreme Court Judges are looney and I hope if any are female that they get taped.

[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.

[lotus]

as the gov cameras spring up everywhere they will now be protected from lawsuits due to operator misuse .... this is probably why they ruled that way

[Calico Cat]

Re your post #69: thank you, Cherry! Some of the smarmy remarks made on this thread make me wonder exactly how many desperate men there are in this world. What kind of twisted loser would get their thrills by looking at this crap? Some people never got past the sniffing butts stage of evolution.

[ArrogantBustard]

Can you give an example of language within the law
No. I just wouldn't be surprised.

I cannot fathom that the law would state that one has the right to look under another's clothing
I can't either, but it doesn't have to. Unless that behaviour is specifically prohibited, one may engage in it. Until the legislature gets around to prohibiting it, that is.

[marshmallow]

Another plank in the "perversion is respectible" construct which we're busily building.

[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.