LAWFUL TO VIDEOTAPE WOMEN'S PANTIES

ABC NEWS

[hoosierskypilot]

Sept. 23 — Jolene Jang was unwittingly caught on videotape while strolling at a street festival in Seattle two summers ago. Later, she learned it was by a video voyeur who had secretly directed the camera lens up her skirt.

Jang, 28, had become the target of "upskirting," a form of voyeurism in which peeping toms either secretly rig up a system of mirrors and hidden video cameras, or simply crouch down with a camera, in order to secretly shoot up a woman's skirt. Such video usually ends up on some of the hundreds of Web sites that feature sex videos.

Witnesses at the Seattle festival also saw the man who targeted Jang videotaping underneath little girls' dresses. They summoned police, who arrested Richard Sorrells, and later found images of girls' and women's skirts recorded on his camera. Sorrells was initially found guilty of voyeurism, but appealed the conviction.

The case went all the way up the Washington State Supreme Court in Olympia, where to the surprise of prosecutors, lawmakers and Jang herself, the taping of her and other targets was ruled "disgusting and reprehensible," but not against the law.

The conviction of Sorrells, and another man, Sean Glas, who had been charged with taking similar pictures at the mall, were overturned. The justices on Sept. 19 ruled unanimously that the state's voyeurism law doesn't apply because the women were taped in a public place, such as a park or shopping mall, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

To Jang, the ruling sounds ridiculous.

"I think it's saying to all the college boys, high school kids and random perverts, 'Hey, it's OK,' " Jang said.

Seattle Police Captain Neil Low, who handles voyeurism cases, said something needs to be done. "I'm outraged that there's a flaw in the system we need to fix," Low said.

As interpreted by the court, the state's voyeurism law protects people who are in a place where they "would have a reasonable expectation of privacy," such as undressing while by themselves in an area where they could expect to be free of intrusion or surveillance.

But the court found the law doesn't apply to filming people in a public place, even if the filming underneath their clothes.

"It is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person's body," Judge Bobbe Bridge wrote.

Washington state lawmakers, who were caught off guard by the ruling, are said to be rushing to introduce new legislation that would outlaw the activity.

[Illbay]

Texas. Or Utah.

[steve-b]

In other news, Bill Clinton is moving to Washington state.

[LetsRok]

but they fail to understand the obvious: Up a skirt is not a public place.

I agree with the judge on this one. What about down a women's shirt? Who hasn't taken a peek when some women bends over to pick something up and their breasts are exposed? If caught, the perp should be beaten to a pulp and their video equipment smashed. This could become a very expensive hobby.

[Skooz]

Agreed.

[WindMinstrel]

Exactly. If someone tries to look or videotape up my wife's (or daughter's) skirt, they will receive a thorough pounding. That's my job as husband/father.

Should such behavior be illegal? Of course. However, it isn't yet in that state. Laws should only be passed when there's a need, IMNHO. There's a demonstrable need now -- let the politicians earn their keep for a change. Hey, when they're passing valid laws like this they won't be able to raise taxes for a few days, right?

[WindMinstrel]

I think that's a pretty valid response to just about any post on FR. Maybe we can get JimRob to put that next to the disclaimer on every post?

[Delbert]

but they fail to understand the obvious: Up a skirt is pubic place.

[ikka]

Am I the only one who remembers the Benny Hill (I think) skit with the guy hanging around near a metal grill staircase on a ship?

He enjoys himself and calls a friend over, the friend smiles and takes his position.

The next person in a skirt to go up... is a man in a kilt! Oy!

[AdA$tra]

Sounds like pants are in order here.

[Desdemona]

Sounds like pants are in order here.

Or shorts under the skirt.

Or underwear with a message like "No Trespassing" or "Turn off the camera, you pervert."

[Bubba_Leroy]

the state's voyeurism law doesn't apply because the women were taped in a public place, such as a park or shopping mall, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy

This is too ludicrous for words. If he videotaped women walking around topless or nude, I would agree. If you show it in public then you can't reasonably expect for it to be private. But to rule that you have no expectation of privacy UNDER your clothes?

[AdA$tra]

Or shorts under the skirt.

...Or perhaps at least skirts long enough to hide the goods when climbing the stairs. Not that I am REALLY complaining here. If one does not want me to look, they might try and hide it at least a little.

[FreeTally]

But what if the woman is walking up stairs or is on a second level balcony - like in a mall? I used to work in a mall like this and innocently saw all sorts of things(some I wished I hadn't) - but didn't film it with a camera.

[Desdemona]

What, and hide the thighs?

Seriously, skirts can be too short - and even worse when you try to sit.

[13foxtrot]

I am amazed that so many people here on FR do not understand how our legal system works.

The court ruled that the existing statute does not apply to 'upskirt-ing'. Now it is up to the legislature to amend the statute - no big deal. That is how the system is designed to work.

However, it would be nice if this court would apply the same judical restraint when conservative issues come before it.

[IronJack]

I've said it before. If I ever caught any slavering twit filming my wife's silkies, his next project would be his own colonoscopy.