So does the state need an "upskirting" law, or is state Sen. Tom Wyss just going to clutter up the legal code with an "offense" that can already be handled by existing statutes? Last year, Wyss decided the state needed to specifically prohibit the practice of using a video camera (usually attached to a shoe) to look up women's dresses. A video store manager had been pulled in for that offense, but the DeKalb County prosecutor, apparently supported by an opinion from the attorney general's office, said that Indiana's voyeurism statute doesn't apply. But now there's been another case -- a Fort Wayne man caught upskirting at Castleton Square in Indianapolis, and he is being charged with voyeurism. What does the Marion County prosecutor know that the DeKalb County one doesn't?
The voyeurism part of Indiana Code 35-45-4 says a "peep" is someone who "peeps" (that's very clear, huh?) "into an area where an occupant of the area reasonably can be expected to disrobe," including:
A) restrooms;
(B) baths;
(C) showers; and
(D) dressing rooms;
without the consent of the other person . . .
Anyone doing that is commiting voyeurism, a Class B misdemeanor. It's bumped up to a felony if the offense is committed using a video camera or other recording device, but it still has to be in one of those areas where disrobing occurs. Granted, there might be "less expectation of privacy" in the more public parts of the mall, but it's certainly reasonable to think that it might include freedom from having your underwear videotaped. And reading the langauge of the statute leads to the conclusion that Wyss is probably right that the law needs to be amended. Not because the law hasn't kept up with technology, as Wyss says, since it does mention taping and "recording devices," just because it has too narrow a definition for peeping. I suspect the Marion County prosecutor might have a tough time making his case for voyeurism.
Wyss recently announced his bill will be on hold until 2011 because it would increase costs to the state:
"It has a fiscal," Wyss told NewsChannel 15. "Any bill which has the potential to increase costs
Comments
The fact that we need a "specific" law for an offense like this illustrates how ridiculous our legal system has become. Anybody with an ounce of common sense (and of course decency) realizes this is "illegal" behavior, but because of over zealous lawyering we have to write a specific statute for looking up girls skirts?
We're doing it bass-ackwards, creating laws that must cover all the possibilities of every scenario in minute detail. Does anybody think this is NOT a violation of privacy?
What the hell ever happened to common sense?
Tim:
It'd be a waste of paper, ink, time and money to create a "new BILL" for something like this, when all that is really needed is to AMEND the current bill in place...And enforce it!
You amend the words to fit the venue only.
And yes, it IS a violation of a person's RIGHT to privacy (which would be inclusive of their Constitutional RIGHT to liberty and pursuing that happiness thing)
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said:
"The right most valued by all civilized men is the right to be left alone. "
Sounds like a plan to me.