One of the most disturbing court rulings I've seen was handed down today in Oklahoma: Court Drops Case of 'Peeping Tom' in Target; Says Victim Was Not in Private Place.
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."
Not only did the court say women who wear dresses are okay targets for perverts, they also said 16-year-old girls, minors, are fair game too. While the law may not have caught up with technology, as stated in the article, the spirit of existing law was shredded.
Pay attention in public places for men carrying shopping bags getting too close, especially if you are wearing a dress. Also look out in dressing rooms and bathrooms. The courts continually refuse to come down hard on these predators, using a lack of existing laws as an excuse so it's up to individuals to protect themselves. I wonder if you beat the crap out of a peeping tom with his own camera if you could get off since the laws don't specify anything about his camera. Just a thought.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Unrest by Parkway Drive