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

[underpants]

Source: Fox News

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.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337173,00.html

---

WHAT
THE
:grr:

[islandmkl]

1. judge better not turn up with upskirt porn on his hard drive...

[leftofcool]

2. What?

There ya have it! A girl's panties are no longer private.

[endarkenment]

4. The law as written did not cover the act committed.

The judge made the correct decision based on the law. That does not mean that the person wasn't a creep, he just wasn't committing a felony.

[Winterblues]

11. I would think under a woman's skirt would be considered private.

I disagree with this decision. Any woman should have a belief that under their clothing is private. Any decision to the contrary is a debatable decision IMO.

[endarkenment]

13. Oh really?

But that is not what the law covers, it covers a place with an expectation of privacy, not a garment with an expectation of privacy. Given that around half the population between the ages of 12 and 30, male and female, engage in willful displays of underwear in public, i don't even think you can make your case even with your very loose interpretation of what the law said.

[frog92969]

12. It was the ignorant cop's fault.

In-cop-etence.:)

[Javaman]

3. Next time Target Tom, don't use a flash!

:rofl:

[Lance_Boyle]

5. or at least not the 500mm telephoto lens... n/t

[BearSquirrel2]

6. Hopefully ...

Hopefully someone stuck a camera up this judges robes on this way out.

[Demeter]

7. What a Convenient Law

So, under a person's clothing is not a private place?

[trusty elf]

8. Remember this guy?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

9. If the slut had been wearing a burqa like a decent girl, it never would've happened!

:eyes:

[Xithras]

10. Sound decision, but OK needs to fix the law.

You can't convict somebody for doing something that isn't illegal, and the action is NOT illegal if the law doesn't cover it. I'd expect the OK legislature to address this loophole ASAP.

[Uncle Joe]

14. It seems to me a person under their clothes is in a place of privacy,

otherwise couldn't police just pat you down for a search anytime, anywhere without regard?

Edit for P.S. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect us against unreasonable search and seizure? If that's the case there must be an expectation of privacy, certainly under our clothes. I can't imagine a Peeping Tom has more justification to look under your clothes than the police.

[Xithras]

20. The law wasn't written that way, or with that intent.

Legally the law needs to define anything under your clothing as private if we want that to be the case. Everything is legal except those things which are illegal...or at least, that's how it's supposed to be. If we don't want upskirt porn freaks walking around our malls, we need to ban that activity. But we should not let that activity remain legal and then whine when a judge refuses to lock someone up for it.

An activity that is not illegal is, by definition, perfectly legal to engage in.

[elleng]

15. Judge needs

to reinterpret the law.

[Xithras]

19. You want to throw a man in prison for something that isn't against the law?

Sorry about the late response, but I've been off DU.

Throwing people in prison for things that aren't against the law, no matter how horrendous we might think those things to be, is a precedent that we don't ever want to set in this country. That's a page straight out of BushCO/Nazi hell.

If something is truly wrong and needs to be illegal (and this DOES need to be illegal), then pass a law to make it so. Any other situation means that YOUR personal freedom depends not on your actions or the law, but instead on the personal opinions of a guy in a black robe. Remember, some of those robe wearers are Bush appointees.

[pocoloco]

22. Like our justice dept does???

[NaturalHigh]

18. No offense, but how much do you know about the Oklahoma legislature?

I wouldn't expect most of them to address a live skunk on the house floor ASAP.

[Xithras]

21. That's the fault of the people of OK.

We live in a representative democracy. If the people of Oklahoma can't elect leaders who care about pervs looking up the skirts of their wives and daughters, that's their own problem. Maybe this will wake them up. At the least, if the legislature fails to act, it might be fodder for some election campaigns this fall.

[RoyGBiv]

16. He was charged under the wrong statute ...

This is common occurrence for some reason. Well, part of the reason is that a DA will charge a person under one statute because the sentence can be stiffer than under the statute that more clearly fits the crime committed.

The judges made the correct decision. The DA that first brought the case, and possibly the police officers as well, should be the subject of scorn here.

[methinks2]

17. what if the girl was say 9 years old?

Would he have been allowed to get away with this? should all females now be concerned because some perv may crawl on the floor to look up their legs at their hooohooos and this is considered to be okay? A good stilletto heel to his eye should fix that problem.
good grief!