How Upskirt Surveillance Videos Can Be Legal

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on Apr 01, 2014

After a man was caught taking upskirt videos of women on a Boston metro route the state supreme court dismissed the case.

In this note, we review the ruling and the potential for this to be an issue in other jurisdictions. The case led to a new state law closing a loophole that allowed the practice.

Background
Michael Robertson was arrested in 2010 for using a cell phone camera to take pictures up women’s dresses on the subway. He was charged, under a peeping tom law, with two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person. He filed a motion to dismiss the case, but it was denied. He appealed.

***** * *** *** caught ****** ******* ****** of ***** ** * Boston ***** ***** *** state ******* ***** ********* the ****.

** **** ****, ** review*** ********* *** ********* *** this ** ** ** issue ** ***** *************. The **** *** ** a *** ***** *** closing * ******** **** allowed *** ********.

**********
******* ********* *** ******** in **** *** ***** a **** ***** ****** to **** ******** ** women’s ******* ** *** subway. ** *** *******, under ******** *** ***, **** *** ****** of ************* ** ************ nude ** ********* **** person. ** ***** * motion ** ******* *** case, *** ** *** denied. ** ********.

[***************]

*******, *** ******, ******** Menken,********** ** * ******* person’s ****** ******* * body **** ** ******, whether *********** ** *************, they ***’* ****** *******. She **** *** *** protects ****** **** ***** recorded ** ******* ****** like ******** ***** *** bathrooms, *** *** ****** places.

*** **** ****** **** under *** ******* ******* the ********* *** ** be ********* ** ** illegal. *** **** *** client *** *** *** was **** ************* **** was ***** ** ***** of ***.

*** ***** ****** **** people **** ** *********** not ** ** ************ in **** *** ** that ********* *** **** a ****** *** ** expectation ** ******* ** their ******* ***** ** a ****** ****.

Appeals *******

******* ***** ******** ***** five ********** **** ***** have ** ** *** for *** ******* ****** to ** * *****:

  • *** ********* *** ********* recording
  • *** ******* *** ********* nude
  • *** ********* *** ****** to ****** ********
  • *** ********* ******** ** a ***** ***** *** person *** * ********** expectation ** *******
  • *** ********* *** ** without *** ***** ****** noticing

*** ******* ***** ********** upheld *********’* ****** ** dismiss ******* *** ****** interpretation ** *** *** “flawed.” *** ***** **** act *** *** ******* all ** *** ************. The ******* **** *** partially **** *** **** not ** * ***** where **** *** * reasonable *********** ** *******.

“** *** **** ** the ************'* ******** ** the ******** ** *** proposition **** * *****, and ** ********** * woman ****** ** * public *******, *** * reasonable *********** ** ******* in *** ****** * stranger ******** **** *********** up *** *****. *** proposition ** ********* **********, but [*** ***] ** its ******* **** **** not ******* **,” ****** said.

*****************

********* ** ***** **** they **** “***********” ******* on ******** ************* ******** to ******* ******** **********. Last **** ******* ********* Clark********** * ****** ** the ************ ********* **** ** any “***** ********, ********, pubic ****, ** ****** breast ***** * ***** immediately ***** *** *** of *** ******, ******* naked ** ******* ** undergarments.” *** **** ** this **** ***** ****** a *** **** *********** bans ***** ********* ** anyone ** ******. ** didn't ****.

** *** *** ***** media ********* *********** *** Robertson ******* * ****** bill *** ****** *******.

*** **** ***** *** case,*** *********** ****** *** law.

"***** *** ****, ** would ** * *********** to **** ****** ****** and ****** ** '*** sexual ** ***** ******** parts ** * ****** under ** ****** *** person’s ********.' *** *** would ***** ** ***** when * '********** ******' would ******* ***** ***** of ***** **** ***** not ** ******** *******,"******.**********.

*** ******* ** ** to ** ** ** months ** **** *** a $**,*** ****.

Other ******

**** ****** ******* ************ *************** ************ *** **********, but **** ***** **** have *** ******** ************* did, ** **** *********** is ****** ** ***** other ****** ** ****** their ****.

*** ******* ** **********, it's ******* ** ******** film "*** *** ******* ** viewing *** **** **, or *** ************* ****," *** **** ** places ***** * ****** has * ********** *********** of *******. *** **** wording *** ** ***** in **** ****** ****** or *******-*** ******* ****: The ********* *** ** be ****** *** *** to ** ** * place ***** * ****** has * ********** *********** of *******.

**********, *******, **** **** a "******* ****" *** that ************ ************ ** the ****** ** ******. Other ****** *** ******* to ***** ******* **** (******* ***** ********* ********).

*******, ***** ***** ** potential ******** ** ****** go *** ***** ** prohibiting ********* ** ******* areas "******* ***** ** covered ** *************."

 

***** *** ****, ** would ** * *********** to **** ****** ****** and ****** ** “*** sexual ** ***** ******** parts ** * ****** under ** ****** *** person’s ********.” *** *** would ***** ** ***** when * “********** ******” would ******* ***** ***** of ***** **** ***** not ** ******** *******. - *** **** **: http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/03/06/after-high-court-ruling-upskirting-legislative-leaders-pledge-quick-action/P1bp7k0AnT0UC6X8JsNjnJ/story.html#sthash.rlXuw2nH.dpuf
***** *** ****, ** would ** * *********** to **** ****** ****** and ****** ** “*** sexual ** ***** ******** parts ** * ****** under ** ****** *** person’s ********.” *** *** would ***** ** ***** when * “********** ******” would ******* ***** ***** of ***** **** ***** not ** ******** *******. - *** **** **: http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/03/06/after-high-court-ruling-upskirting-legislative-leaders-pledge-quick-action/P1bp7k0AnT0UC6X8JsNjnJ/story.html#sthash.rlXuw2nH.dpuf

Comments (8)

Besides the outrage we all normally feel at seeing the puported peeping perpetrator skirt the law, does anyone else feel a contempt for the standard practice of retaining counsel which demographically resembles the victim in as many ways possible? It seems almost automatic these days, harass a woman, hire a female lawyer, assault an african american, hire one as a lawyer. Same goes if the victim is a latino or a senior citizen.

All based on "innocence by association" as well as the crude logical fallacy of "Here is someone just like the victim who likes the accused, maybe the victim is the problem..." I feel (on an emotional level only) like it shouldn't even be allowed as it is a brutal mock of the crime itself.

Of course we can't say absolutely whether that was the case or not here, but on the other hand I can't help wonder if she is wearing pants...

Rukmini, that may be a nobley intended thought, but still flawed for a number of reasons. A defendant should be allowed to hire whomever they want as counsel. Counsel should be allowed to work for whomever they want. If you're a defendant, you'd want any advantage within reason. Prosecution will try to paint a bad picture of you. You will want to paint the best picture of yourself as possible. Unlike many parts of the world, here you are innocent until proven guilty, and that's the way it should be.

As for the main subject of the article, I think they still could have gotten him on disorderly conduct, though that carries a pretty light penalty. Unfortunately these days you have to have laws spelled out in superfluous detail because common sense is given so little credit or weight when a law is challenged on intent.

Rest assured I agree that "a defendant should be allowed to hire whomever they want as counsel", that is what I was trying say with my parenthetical stipulation "(on an emotional level only)". Since the profession is notoriously white (90%) and male (70%), this practice results in an added boost for the minorities and is welcome in that respect.

I wonder when we might see a court case about a retail store using cameras in the floor to look clothing on the grounds shoplifters hiding merchandise underneath.

I wonder what this means for the paparazzi on celebrities.

Probably nothing. It's not considered in the same category and paparazzi are typically in places where people don't have an expectation of privacy anyway. If anyone knows laws on recording people it's the paparazzi and they'll push right up to the line without doing something illegal. Because of that, some states, California for example, already have specific laws aimed at paparazzi.

If it's coming more to light and the states close loopholes, then the paparazzi might not get too far.

However, with bathroom cams already being justified in some cases, how soon until we see the new:

FLOOR CAM!

"See what shoplifters are UP too"

Carlton, what about the laws regarding thru-skirt technologies, do they exist?  We are on the cusp of the launch of the Flir One which will no doubt lead to new and innovative privacy invasions...

Maybe an oppurtunity for garments with embedded infra-red countermeasures ??

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Installation Course - Register Now on Aug 15, 2019
Register Now for the September 2019 Video Surveillance Install Course. This is a unique installation course in a market where little practical...
Biometrics Usage Statistics 2019 on Aug 13, 2019
Biometrics are commonly used in phones, but how frequently are they used for access? 150+ integrators told us how often they use biometrics,...
Milestone "GDPR-ready" Certification Claim Critiqued on Aug 12, 2019
Milestone is touting that its latest XProtect VMS is "GDPR-ready" with a 'European Privacy Seal'. However, our investigation raises significant...
Australia Security Full Show Report on Jul 25, 2019
IPVM went to Australia attending the 3 days of the Australia Security Exhibition: This was held at the ICC Sydney, as shown below: In this...
Responsibility Split Selecting Locks - Statistics on Jul 22, 2019
A heated access debate surrounds who should pick and install the locks. While responsible for selecting the control systems, integrators often...
History of Video Surveillance on Jul 19, 2019
The video surveillance market has changed significantly since 2000, going from VCRs to ab emerging AI cloud era.  The goal of this history is to...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
HD Analog vs IP Guide on Jul 16, 2019
For years, HD resolution and single cable signal/power were IP camera advantages, with analog cameras limited to much lower resolution and...
Lens Focal Length Tutorial on Jul 10, 2019
3mm, 6mm, 2.8 - 9mm, 5 - 50mm, etc. Camera specifications often list lens lengths but what do they mean? These metrics are important in...
Poor OSDP Usage Statistics 2019 on Jul 09, 2019
OSDP certainly offers advantages over decades-old Wiegand (see our OSDP Access Control Guide) but new IPVM statistics show that usage of OSDP, even...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Anyvision Facial Recognition Tested on Aug 21, 2019
Anyvision is aiming for $1 billion in revenue by 2022, backed by $74 million in funding. But does their performance live up to the hype they have...
JCI Sues Wyze on Aug 21, 2019
The mega manufacturer / integrator JCI has sued the fast-growing $20 camera Seattle startup Wyze. Inside this note: Share the court...
Dahua 4K Camera Shootout on Aug 20, 2019
Dahua's new Pro Series 4K N85CL5Z claims to "deliver superior images in all lighting and environmental conditions", but how does this compare to...
ZK Teco Atlas Access Control Tested on Aug 20, 2019
Who needs access specialists? China-based ZKTeco claims its newest access panel 'makes it very easy for anyone to learn and install access control...
Uniview Beats Intel In Trademark Lawsuit on Aug 19, 2019
Uniview has won a long-running trademark lawsuit brought by Intel, with Beijing's highest court reversing an earlier Intel win, centered on...
Suprema Biometric Mass Leak Examined on Aug 19, 2019
While Suprema is rarely discussed even within the physical security market, the South Korean biometrics manufacturer made global news this past...
Verkada People And Face Analytics Tested on Aug 16, 2019
This week, Verkada released "People Analytics", including face analytics that they describe is a "game-changing feature" that "pushes the...
Dahua OEM Directory 2019 on Aug 16, 2019
US Government banned Dahua OEMs for dozens of companies. The following directory includes 40+ of those companies with a graphic and links to...
Installation Course - Register Now on Aug 15, 2019
Register Now for the September 2019 Video Surveillance Install Course. This is a unique installation course in a market where little practical...
Axis Suffers Outage, Provides Postmortem on Aug 15, 2019
This week, Axis suffered an outage impacting their website and cloud services. Inside this note, we examined what happened, what was impacted...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact