Seattletimes.com: 'Upskirt' photographs deemed lewd but legal (fwd)

[Debbie Gray <dgray@uidaho.edu>]

What do you all think of this? Where do we draw the line between lewd and
legal and lewd and illegal? And would the topless carwash women and/or men
dislike having their photos taken while performing their non-sexual XXX
carwash and then sold on the internet for $100/each? And what happens if
people observing the topless individuals started to creep those individals
out? If toplessness is legal, what about those w/a voyeurism fetish or
such?

I think it's reprehensible that this is allowed, ESPECIALLY when the focus
(pardon the pun) is on small children.

Debbie Gray


This message was sent to you by dgray@uidaho.edu,
as a service of The Seattle Times (http://www.seattletimes.com).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

'Upskirt' photographs deemed lewd but legal
Full story: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=voyeur20m0&date=20020920

By Maureen O'Hagan
Seattle Times staff reporter

						It's disgusting, the state
Supreme Court opined.

It's reprehensible, the court added for good measure.

But it is not a crime to secretly take pictures up women's skirts in
public places, according to the high-court opinion handed down yesterday.

The opinion came in response to appeals by two men who challenged the
state's voyeurism law.

The men were caught in 1999 and 2000 crouching where they shouldn't —
one at a Union Gap mall in the Yakima Valley and the other at The Bite of
Seattle at Seattle Center.

One planned to sell his photos to an Internet site that specializes in
such shots. The other kept the videotapes for his private viewing but has
since gone into treatment.

"Although (their) actions are reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism
statute, as written, does not prohibit upskirt photography in a public
place," Justice Bobbe Bridge, one of four women on the state Supreme
Court, wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The decision will almost certainly lead the Legislature to change the law,
the prosecution and defense lawyers agreed.

In April 1999 at Valley Mall's Sears store in Union Gap, Sean Glas, 28,
was caught by an employee who, out of the corner of her eye, saw a flash
around her backside, according to charging papers. And there was Glas, low
to the ground and taking a photo up her skirt.

According to the charging papers, police said Glas told them "he thought
it was immoral, not illegal." He added that he planned to sell the photos
— six for $600 — to an Internet site.

In an unrelated case in May 2000, Glas was charged in Yakima County with
second-degree child rape. He later pleaded to third-degree rape and was
sentenced to four years in prison.

So-called "upskirt cams," sometimes called "upskirt photos" or "upskirt
voyeur pictures," are a hot commodity in the world of Internet
pornography. Such adult Web sites abound, where visitors supply their
credit-card numbers for the opportunity to view digital photos purportedly
snapped up the dresses or skirts of women or teenagers without their
knowledge.

The other man, Richard Sorrells of Seattle, was arrested in July 2000
after a woman standing in an ice-cream line at The Bite thought she felt
him grabbing for her purse. But he wasn't interested in her money.

According to court documents, police said that after his arrest, Sorrells
told them, "I'm not a thief; I'm a Peeping Tom. I was videotaping up
little girls' dresses."

Both were charged and convicted at the trial-court level under the state's
voyeurism statute. The law was passed in 1998 in response to several cases
in which charges were dismissed against men who photographed girls in
their bathrooms or bedrooms. Before that, such acts were not covered by
state law.

But in the Glas and Sorrells cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the new
voyeurism statute failed to deal with photographs taken in public places,
where people don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

"It didn't come as a great surprise," said Kenneth Ramm, the Yakima
prosecutor who handled the Glas case.

Sorrells' lawyer, Kenneth Sharaga, said the problem is that "the criminal
law necessarily lags behind technology and human ingenuity. ... Technology
has advanced to the point where there are pretty small video cameras that
can be used to tape under a lady's clothing. That wasn't brought to the
attention of the Legislature."

Sharaga agreed that the law should be changed to address the offensive
behavior of people like his client.

For now, Peeping Toms operating in public places can avoid criminal
prosecution. But there is still at least one potential deterrent, said the
Yakima prosecutor.

"If you get caught doing that, what's the natural reaction?" Ramm asks.
"You just may risk getting beat up."

Seattle Times staff reporter Ian Ith and researcher Miyoko Wolf
contributed to this report.

======================================================================

            Copyright (c) 2002 The Seattle Times Company

                        www.seattletimes.com
                       Your Life. Your Times.