Ethics question...

[Howard Barlow]

TEXAS PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCYCHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSESSec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:... or(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

..............

Before it is a matter of ethics, it's a matter of law.

[danchez]

so, would you risk a disorderly conduct charge for images of a high ranking official having an affair???

but reading the OP, he is in Colorado, not Texas, so not sure what the laws are there.

Would I take and sell those images for $100,000.00??? Money like that would be hard to say no to.

[Saltwater Servitude]

Originally Posted by MHampton

WAIT A MINUTE!! The first time I read this, I don't remember talk about this being research for a novel. Did you edit the post and add that first line? :)

Very sneaky! :)

Sounds like a page turner for sure though!

<still laughing>

Nah, I edited the scenario to fit what's happening in the book but I always had the research line up there.

Almost all of what happens in the hotel you won't see. It can be reduced to a few sentences of dialogue when the SOS meets the photographer. At the end of the chapter, as the SOS and her assistant make love for the first time, I end with something like this since I can't find the exact line in my notes:

"From across the lake in a room devoid of light other than a soft glow coming from a 4" LCD screen, a telephoto lens recorded their love frame by frame."

Cheesy, but it serves its purpose.

Originally Posted by tc95

Let us know what the name of the book will be...

Working title so far is "Isosceles Protocol."

I did get to talk to an attorney friend today in Houston who said an open window where the window treatments have been pulled back becomes an attractive nuisance. The curtains/blinds pulled back is a statement of abdication of privacy to the area immediately observable from a public area. However, if the couple in my scenario move to the bedroom where the shades are still down, they are then seeking privacy and can't go shooting photos through the crack between the blinds and the window frame.

There's no doubt that 29999 lawyers would maintain this position, and 30000 would say it's incorrect depending on who was paying for their hourly.

[RexGig]

My interpretation of the disorderly conduct (peeping Tom) statute is that the persons inside the building must not be readily viewable from outside the window, to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Leaving any blinds/curtains/shades/shutters/et cetera positioned so that one is visible from a publicly-accessible area effectively negates any reasonable expectation of privacy. (The word "reasonable" is very important throughout the Texas Penal Code.)

Being reckless about one's sexual activity being visible to the public can result in being charged with lewd conduct in Texas. If actors are inside a building, but visible to the outside, this complicates the matter a bit, compared to being outdoors. I have known the Harris County Assistant D.A. on call at the time, to accept or reject the lewd conduct charge, depending upon the totality of the circumstances, such as lighting conditions and how near the window the activity occurred, and the individual Assistant D.A.'s interpretation of such
terms as intentional and reckless. The credibility of the complaining witness,
and prior criminal convictions of any party involved, are also factors.

Keep in mind that private property can indeed a public place, for purposes of this discussion.

I reckon that some circumstances may result in there being a gray area, regarding where being a peeping Tom ends, and being a complaining witness to lewd conduct, begins. Window peeping's culpable mental state is "intentional," if I remember correctly.

I am not a lawyer, but I do wear a badge, so this is not a legal opinion, just a layman's view based on training and experience. My Penal Code book is inside my locker, at work, and I am typing this at home.

Regarding ethics, I will not go there, at least not now.

[abuford]

A lot would depend on what brand of camera they were using. If they were using a Nikon, it would definately be unethical.

[z-monster]

Seems to me that ethics went out the door once the trigger was pulled. Of course, I understand that unexpected situations happen. However if ethics were truly involved in this scenario, the photographer would have stopped what he was doing and erased the images.

Why bother to question ethics after?

Now that the photographer knows what he has in his hands he stands a very good chance of making money from either side of the fence. The only question left is are the legal issues.

[SCone]

An elected official (or appointed in this matter) has ZERO expectation for privacy. The same photos could be used by a foreign government to harm the integrity and/or security of the United States.

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by RexGig

My interpretation of the disorderly conduct (peeping Tom) statute is that the persons inside the building must not be readily viewable from outside the window, to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Leaving any blinds/curtains/shades/shutters/et cetera positioned so that one is visible from a publicly-accessible area effectively negates any reasonable expectation of privacy. (The word "reasonable" is very important throughout the Texas Penal Code.)

Being reckless about one's sexual activity being visible to the public can result in being charged with lewd conduct in Texas. If actors are inside a building, but visible to the outside, this complicates the matter a bit, compared to being outdoors. I have known the Harris County Assistant D.A. on call at the time, to accept or reject the lewd conduct charge, depending upon the totality of the circumstances, such as lighting conditions and how near the window the activity occurred, and the individual Assistant D.A.'s interpretation of such
terms as intentional and reckless. The credibility of the complaining witness,
and prior criminal convictions of any party involved, are also factors.

Keep in mind that private property can indeed a public place, for purposes of this discussion.

I reckon that some circumstances may result in there being a gray area, regarding where being a peeping Tom ends, and being a complaining witness to lewd conduct, begins. Window peeping's culpable mental state is "intentional," if I remember correctly.

I am not a lawyer, but I do wear a badge, so this is not a legal opinion, just a layman's view based on training and experience. My Penal Code book is inside my locker, at work, and I am typing this at home.

Regarding ethics, I will not go there, at least not now.

...looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room... would seem to make the actions of the person inside irrelevant, as to the actions of the actor outside.