Judge rules that 'upskirt' photos taken without consent are NOT illegal (so long as victim is wearing panties)

[superbeets]

• Currently, Massachusetts law says it's only illegal to photograph a person without their consent if they are nude or partially nude
• The ruling stems from the case of Michael Roberston, who was arrested in a sting operation after using his phone to take 'upskirt' photos and videos on the subway
• Community leaders are urging lawmakers to update the law to include 'upskirt' photos of people wearing underwear

​

 

[superbeets]

+


Change: District Attorney Dan Conley says that laws need to be changed in order for the Court to criminalize 'upskirt' photography

A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders' skirts and dresses.

The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.


​

 

[superbeets]

+


Awareness: Conley says that this conduct has become more and more prevalent, and he urged riders to be on the lookout for any upskirt photogs

Existing so-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said.

'A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is "partially nude," no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,' the court said in its ruling.

State law 'does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA,' the court said.

The SJC said that while such actions should be illegal, they are not, given the way state law is written.

Suffolk County prosecutors said their interpretation of the state's Peeping Tom law was that 'upskirt' photos are illegal.


​

 

[superbeets]

Gina Scaramella, executive director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, said such photos are a serious invasion of privacy. She said the law needs to catch up to technology.

'It really is a form of sexual harassment. It's a violation for the person who is unknowingly getting their body photographed,' she said. 'People wear clothing for a reason and having someone violate that privacy is a real problem.'




MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said that Transit Police support the Suffolk County District Attorney's efforts to work with the Legislature in rewriting the statute. He did not say what the MBTA could do in the meantime to prevent the activity.

Pesaturo said that in the past three years, T police have investigated 13 'secretly photographing' cases. In some cases, the alleged offender was issued a court summons. Some remain open investigations. During those three years there was an average of 395 million passenger trips on the MBTA.

​

 

[hehateme82]

 

[Willie99]

my kind of judge