Smile for the Hidden Camera

Jeanine went out with her girlfriends after work one night to a local lounge. The four young, attractive women traded stories as they sat around a cocktail table munching on snacks. One of Jeanine’s friends noticed that a man a little older than them kept circling their group. He had his cell phone in his hand and paused for just a moment as he stood over each woman. Jeanine confronted the man and asked him what he was doing. He insisted he was just waiting for a phone call, but Jeanine had recently read an article about the dangers of “downblousing”—taking pictures of women’s cleavage and posting it on the Internet—and suspected that was what he was doing.

What are Jeanine’s legal rights at this point? Can she demand to see his cell phone? Should she call the police? Can she press charges if she thinks this man has been taking pictures of her and her friends?

The Susan Wilson Story

The story of Susan Wilson and her family, from Monroe, Louisiana, is shocking. Wilson could not understand how a long-time family friend and church member, Steve Glover, seemed to know so many things about her, including what she had just done. Wilson eventually got suspicious enough to look around in Glover’s house one day when she was visiting. She found a videotape and was shocked to see her own bedroom appear on the screen after she pressed Play. As it turns out, Glover had planted hidden video cameras in Glover’s bedroom and master bathroom. Wilson’s story was brought to national attention and became the subject of a TV movie after she discovered that there were no laws in Louisiana prohibiting what Glover had done. Glover eventually pleaded to “unauthorized entry” and was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution for the damage he caused in placing his equipment inside Wilson’s home.

Location, Location, Location

James Boudreaux, also from Monroe, Louisiana, bought a wireless color camera from Radio Shack for $20 and hid it inside his stepdaughter’s entertainment center in her bedroom. For 4 months, Boudreaux videotaped his stepdaughter in various stages of dress and undress, including when she was completely nude. The discovery was made when the stepdaughter went to Boudreaux’s bedroom and found him standing naked in front of his TV with the video streaming. In December of 2007, Boudreaux became the first person convicted under Louisiana’s newly adopted state video voyeurism law. He was originally sentenced to 56 years in prison, but appealed and was resentenced to 15 years in prison.

Coincidentally, in that same month, a retired Connecticut firefighter, Richard Stevenson, was sentenced for secretly videotaping his 17-year-old stepdaughter. After searching their home, Stevenson’s ex-wife found 72 tapes taken of her daughter. The videos were taken in her daughter’s bedroom, and the girl was often naked.

Stevenson had a shed behind their home, which he used as his own private retreat. He referred to the shed as “Paradise Ranch”. In it was a monitor that played back video from no less than five cameras Stevenson had planted in the home, two of which were in his stepdaughter’s bedroom. His sentence? Six months in jail.

Ohio 2008 Voyeurism Case—30 Days in Jail

To illustrate this point further, take the recent case of a 25-year-old fitness center manager from Ohio who, in June of 2008, was found guilty of voyeurism when he hid a camera in the ceiling of a tanning booth. The man was found guilty of a second degree misdemeanor, a charge that netted him 90 days in the county jail with 60 days suspended. However, he will have to register as a sex offender upon his release.

The Florentino Avila Case: Our Firsthand Experience

Those in law enforcement will tell you that they see so much bizarre behavior it takes a lot to surprise them. We have a very commonly used saying for those times when we are surprised: “You just can’t make this stuff up”.

We handled a case not too long ago that was most interesting from a technical standpoint, and challenging from a legal one.

Florentino Avila had taken and archived hundreds of photos over the course of a couple of years. All these photos were taken up the skirts of women in various department stores. Avila hid in clothing racks and dressing rooms, and even blatantly knelt down in aisles while strategically angling his cell phone camera to forever memorialize what dozens of unsuspecting women were wearing under their skirts.

Despite hundreds of disturbing images and hundreds of victims whose privacy had been violated, Avila could only be charged for a handful of images because in a crime of this nature, law enforcement must have an identified victim.

People are creatures of habit, and for those who cross the line into sexual deviance, our experience is that recidivism is generally guaranteed.

Coincidentally, Avila was caught for this same deviance in the state of Colorado. People are creatures of habit, and for those who cross the line into sexual deviance, our experience is that recidivism is generally guaranteed.

The Brian Presken Case

A police report taken on July 8, 2007, tells the story of what can happen at a seemingly innocent place—a bookstore. According to the report, the 26-year-old victim was slightly bent forward browsing bookshelves when she noticed a flash of light. She said she thought a man had taken a picture of her. The Pensacola woman said she noticed another flash of light, and when she turned around, the man’s hand was beneath the opening of her skirt, and there was something in his hand. The woman screamed, and the man retreated. The woman caught up to Brian Presken, 32, a former Catholic high school teacher of Pensacola, Florida. She confronted Presken and called the police. Someone in the store found a mirror on a shelf and gave it to police.

Presken, who passed out while being questioned by police, told police he kept a mirror with him to check his appearance. (Voyeurs often keep a mirror handy, because if they can’t capture an image up a woman’s skirt, they will resort to just viewing it with a mirror.) Presken filed a motion to get his misdemeanor voyeurism conviction overturned because of the legal argument that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Presken was charged under the Florida Statute 810.14: Voyeurism. This statute states, in part

“… a person commits the offense of voyeurism when he or she, with lewd, lascivious, or indecent intent, secretly observes another person when the other person is located in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance and such location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

In the motion, Presken’s attorney, Katheryne Snowden, claimed that the Florida statute didn’t define the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy”.

Interestingly, there is another Florida state statute that is meant specifically to deal with video voyeurism, meaning using video cameras or cell phone cameras to commit the act. This statute defines reasonable expectation of privacy as “anyplace where a person can disrobe,” but Presken was alleged to have used a mirror, not a camera of any kind.

Voyeurism laws have been overturned in other states because the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” has not been clearly defined.

Conviction Overturned

On May 16, 2008, Judge George J. Roark III agreed and granted Presken’s motion to dismiss the voyeurism charge. The Assistant State Attorney, Greg Marcille, said the ruling will not be appealed, but he did say, “We intend to ask the legislature in next year’s session to consider amending the statute to cover situations such as what occurred in this case”.

Presken was also charged with disorderly conduct, which is still being pursued.

Ramifications

Presken’s case has significant ramifications because too many states have adopted the language “reasonable expectation of privacy” without any clear definition of what that means. Too often, it is only after convictions get overturned that states close up these legal gray areas.

In Washington State, two men were convicted in separate voyeurism cases and used a similar privacy argument to appeal their cases to their state’s supreme court. One of the men was accused of taking pictures under the skirts of two female employees at a mall. The other was suspected of videotaping under the skirts and dresses of women and girls at an event in Seattle.

The court acknowledged that the behavior of the men was “reprehensible,” but the law they were charged under could not be applied to “public places”. State lawmakers ended up amending the statute after both cases were overturned.

If you don’t believe us when we say video voyeurism is huge, go to YouTube and do a search for “hidden camera”.

People who have pictures unknowingly taken of them for the purposes of someone else’s sexual gratification are victims. That means there are thousands of unsuspecting victims out there who probably don’t even know they’ve ever been victimized.