Oklahoma Court Ruling "On Expecation of Privacy."

[johnastovall]

Court Drops Case of 'Peeping Tom' in Target; Says Victim Was Not in Private Place


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. He said he found the majority's finding of no reasonable expectation of privacy "interesting and disturbing."

[Hogleg 44]

I suppose I'd have to disagree with the court on this one. Up a skirt is a Private Place, in my opinion!

[Coelus]

Now the question is, can the state try him on charges of improperly photographing a minor?

[HeatherLou]

Wow, Ya, the Court went bonkers on this one.

[rusty_tripod]

I suspect the ruling was based upon the statute they used to charge him rather than upon the legality of the act. Apparently a "Peeping Tom" statute was not created to address voyuerism in public places. Now the state has to come up with a new statute for that loophole.

[brad]

Exactly Alton .. unfortunately, this is common in court. The letter of the law is used rather than the intent of it. The court was absolutely correct that THIS law could not be used for prosecution. However, I know in Texas there are a number of laws that could be used in such a case... improper photography of a minor comes to mind.. but perhaps Oklahoma doesn't have the same statutes... or maybe just the DA didn't know what they were doing.

[Steelsun]

Texas has a statute on taking pictures without consent for the purposes of arrousal or sexual gratification. Many other states have that law also.
Sounds like the Okies need it.

It was made especially to combat this type of perv.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Steelsun

Texas has a statute on taking pictures without consent for the purposes of arrousal or sexual gratification. Many other states have that law also.
Sounds like the Okies need it.

It was made especially to combat this type of perv.

And was miss applied in it's first use.

Texas doesn't need such vague laws regarding photography.

[amadjuster]

Originally Posted by Steelsun

Texas has a statute on taking pictures without consent for the purposes of arrousal or sexual gratification. Many other states have that law also.
Sounds like the Okies need it.

It was made especially to combat this type of perv.

You realize that in Oklahoma, this will outlaw pictures of pickups, livestock, and Barry Switzer.

[Dobick]

Originally Posted by amadjuster

You realize that in Oklahoma, this will outlaw pictures of pickups, livestock, and Barry Switzer.

[Steelsun]

Originally Posted by amadjuster

You realize that in Oklahoma, this will outlaw pictures of pickups, livestock, and Barry Switzer.

And family self portraits. Or is that just in Arkansas, Tennessee and the Carolinas?