This just irritates the heck right out of me:cuss::cuss::cuss: OKLAHOMA CITY — A man accused of using a camera to take pictures under the skirt of an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl at a Tulsa store did not commit a crime, a state appeals court has ruled. The state Court of Criminal Appeals voted 4-1 in favor of Riccardo Gino Ferrante, who was arrested in 2006 for situating a camera underneath the girl's skirt at a Target store and taking photographs. Ferrante, now 34, was charged under a "Peeping Tom" statute that requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy." Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt. In January 2007, Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert ordered Ferrante's felony charge dismissed. That was based upon a determination that "the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy," according to the appellate ruling issued last week. The District Attorney's Office had appealed Gillert's ruling to the Court of Criminal Appeals. "We agree with the district court's analysis," stated the opinion written by Appeals Judge Charles Johnson, with Judges Charles Chapel, David Lewis and Arlene Johnson concurring. In a dissent, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote that "what this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress." "In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress," Lumpkin wrote.
An old navy employee in Greenville got arrested 2 weeks ago for taking pictures with his cell phone in the dressing room. You won't catch me in the fitting rooms anymore.
the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy What? That's just crazy. So if she would have grabbed something and beat him senseless, I wonder if they would have charged her.
Probably, thats against the law. clearly, taking a picture up my skirt in public isn't, that is crazy
Welp, guess I gotta start wearing underoos. KIDDING! :lol: I can sorta see the angle the judge was going. WEAR LONGER F'N SKIRTS! sorry guys :mrgreen: But if it was me...his front teeth wouldn't exist anymore. :twisted:
In a dissent, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote that "what this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress." At least this judge had some sense. It's a shame he couldn't convince the others. Unbelievable...
Reminds me of that idiot judge who a few years back placed the blame for rape on the victim based on the way she dressed.
Only in Oklahoma! :lol: Seriously, I assume the drafters of the statute were trying to say something like, if a person strips in public, it's OK for the onlookers to look. They just need to find a more artful way to say that.
http://place-for-laugh.com/2008/03/funny-balloon-dresses.html Now all I need is a pea shooter! :mrgreen:
I am not a lawyer for sure. But I think to charge someone with breaking a law there has to be a law on the books that he broke. You can't make up the rules as you go along. I remember the Tylenol scare in the early '80's the state of Connecticut had to call an emergency session just before Halloween to make it illegal to put harmful things in children's treats.
or if you're laying on a beach in a bikini, for example. on the other hand, while you might not be able to expect privacy in a mall (same reasoning used for paparazzi being able to follow celebrities around in public), i would have to say that the space inside your skirt is a place where you would reasonably expect privacy, no matter where your skirt happens to be....
Wow, that's really sick and disturbing... But, that wouldn't happen here. There is a Assistant District Attorney named "Kayley Taber" who is running for District Court Judge here in Johnston County. Judicial District 11 - Johnston, Harnett, and Lee Counties KayleyTaber wrote and proposed legislation that is now "law" that increases penalties (FELONY) for peeping toms who "videotape their victims". http://www.localtechwire.com/news/local/story/107899/ From what I understand, she takes Domestic Violence, Childrens Issues, Peeping, etc with a very heavy hand. Here is her webpage if you want to read about the "peeping tom" law http://www.kayleytaberforjudge.org/news.html
