How Upskirt Surveillance Videos Can Be Legal

Author: 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.

***** * *** *** ****** ****** ******* ****** ** ***** on * ****** ***** ***** *** ***** ******* ***** ********* the ****.

** **** ****, ** ********* ********* *** ********* *** **** ** ** ** ***** ** other *************. *** **** *** ** * *** ***** *** closing * ******** **** ******* *** ********.

**********
******* ********* *** ******** ** **** *** ***** * **** phone ****** ** **** ******** ** *****’* ******* ** *** subway. ** *** *******, ***** ******** *** ***, **** *** ****** ** ************* ** ************ **** ** partially **** ******. ** ***** * ****** ** ******* *** case, *** ** *** ******. ** ********.

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

*******, *** ******, ******** ******,********** ** * ******* ******’* ****** ******* * **** **** in ******, ******* *********** ** *************, **** ***’* ****** *******. She **** *** *** ******** ****** **** ***** ******** ** private ****** **** ******** ***** *** *********, *** *** ****** places.

*** **** ****** **** ***** *** ******* ******* *** ********* had ** ** ********* ** ** *******. *** **** *** client *** *** *** *** **** ************* **** *** ***** in ***** ** ***.

*** ***** ****** **** ****** **** ** *********** *** ** be ************ ** **** *** ** **** ********* *** **** a ****** *** ** *********** ** ******* ** ***** ******* parts ** * ****** ****.

Appeals *******

******* ***** ******** ***** **** ********** **** ***** **** ** be *** *** *** ******* ****** ** ** * *****:

  • *** ********* *** ********* *********
  • *** ******* *** ********* ****
  • *** ********* *** ****** ** ****** ********
  • *** ********* ******** ** * ***** ***** *** ****** *** a ********** *********** ** *******
  • *** ********* *** ** ******* *** ***** ****** ********

*** ******* ***** ********** ****** *********’* ****** ** ******* ******* the ****** ************** ** *** *** “******.” *** ***** **** act *** *** ******* *** ** *** ************. *** ******* were *** ********* **** *** **** *** ** * ***** where **** *** * ********** *********** ** *******.

“** *** **** ** *** ************'* ******** ** *** ******** is *** *********** **** * *****, *** ** ********** * woman ****** ** * ****** *******, *** * ********** *********** of ******* ** *** ****** * ******** ******** **** *********** up *** *****. *** *********** ** ********* **********, *** [*** law] ** *** ******* **** **** *** ******* **,” ****** said.

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

********* ** ***** **** **** **** “***********” ******* ** ******** Massachusetts ******** ** ******* ******** **********. **** **** ******* ********* Clark********** * ****** ** *** ************ ********* **** ** *** “***** ********, ********, ***** ****, or ****** ****** ***** * ***** *********** ***** *** *** of *** ******, ******* ***** ** ******* ** *************.” *** bill ** **** **** ***** ****** * *** **** *********** bans ***** ********* ** ****** ** ******. ** ****'* ****.

** *** *** ***** ***** ********* *********** *** ********* ******* a ****** **** *** ****** *******.

*** **** ***** *** ****,*** *********** ****** *** ***.

"***** *** ****, ** ***** ** * *********** ** **** secret ****** *** ****** ** '*** ****** ** ***** ******** parts ** * ****** ***** ** ****** *** ******’* ********.' The *** ***** ***** ** ***** **** * '********** ******' would ******* ***** ***** ** ***** **** ***** *** ** publicly *******,"******.**********.

*** ******* ** ** ** ** ** ** ****** ** jail *** * $**,*** ****.

Other ******

**** ****** ******* ************ *************** ************ *** **********, *** **** ***** **** **** *** loophole ************* ***, ** **** *********** ** ****** ** ***** other ****** ** ****** ***** ****.

*** ******* ** **********, **'* ******* ** ******** **** "*** *** ******* ** ******* *** **** **, ** *** undergarments ****," *** **** ** ****** ***** * ****** *** * reasonable *********** ** *******. *** **** ******* *** ** ***** in **** ****** ****** ** *******-*** ******* ****: *** ********* has ** ** ****** *** *** ** ** ** * place ***** * ****** *** * ********** *********** ** *******.

**********, *******, **** **** * "******* ****" *** **** ************ distribution ** *** ****** ** ******. ***** ****** *** ******* to ***** ******* **** (******* ***** ********* ********).

*******, ***** ***** ** ********* ******** ** ****** ** *** route ** *********** ********* ** ******* ***** "******* ***** ** covered ** *************."

 

***** *** ****, ** ***** ** * *********** ** **** secret ****** *** ****** ** “*** ****** ** ***** ******** parts ** * ****** ***** ** ****** *** ******’* ********.” The *** ***** ***** ** ***** **** * “********** ******” would ******* ***** ***** ** ***** **** ***** *** ** publicly *******. - *** **** **: ****://***.******.***/*********************/****/**/**/*****-****-*****-******-**********-***********-*******-******-*****-******/**********************/*****.****#******.********.****
***** *** ****, ** ***** ** * *********** ** **** secret ****** *** ****** ** “*** ****** ** ***** ******** parts ** * ****** ***** ** ****** *** ******’* ********.” The *** ***** ***** ** ***** **** * “********** ******” would ******* ***** ***** ** ***** **** ***** *** ** publicly *******. - *** **** **: ****://***.******.***/*********************/****/**/**/*****-****-*****-******-**********-***********-*******-******-*****-******/**********************/*****.****#******.********.****

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

Video Analytics Integration Guide on Aug 16, 2018
Video analytics is hot again (at least conceptually) but integrating video analytics with VMSes can be challenging. This is especially significant...
Backboxes for Video Surveillance Tutorial on Aug 15, 2018
Backboxes are a necessity in surveillance, whether for managing cable whips, recessing cameras, adding wireless radios. But it can be confusing to...
SimpliSafe Violating California, Florida, and Texas Licensing Laws on Aug 14, 2018
IPVM has verified that DIY security system provider SimpliSafe, founded in 2006 and acquired in June of 2018 at a billion dollar valuation, is...
Nortek Sues SDS, Battle Over Unpaid Bill and Cancelled Lines on Aug 13, 2018
Nortek and SDS legal battle continues. As IPVM reported, SDS sued Nortek alleging bribery and antitrust violation. However, Wave fired back at SDS,...
Axis / Avigilon Legal Battle Rises on Aug 09, 2018
In what is shaping up to be high-powered, will-not-back-down battle, Axis and Avigilon are squaring off in multiple legal contests. In 2017, IPVM...
Camera Focusing Tutorial on Aug 09, 2018
A camera's focus is fundamental to quality imaging. Mistakes can cause important problems. In this guide, we explain focus issues and proper...
Hikvision PanoVu Mini Tested (Multi-imager + PTZ For ~$500) on Aug 07, 2018
Hikvision has released their first PanoVu Mini multi imager, the PanoVu DS-2PT3326IZ-DE3, with four 1080p imagers, including a PTZ and integrated...
Struggling Ascent Hiding Under Brinks on Aug 07, 2018
The market cap of Brinks Home Security, Monitronics, MONI, Ascent Capital Group (whatever one calls them) is down 96% over the past 5 years as the...
Camera Cable Whip Guide on Aug 03, 2018
Cable whips are one of integrator's least favorite camera features but seem to be unavoidable, now commonplace on dome, turret, and bullet cameras...
US Congress Passes Bill Banning Dahua and Hikvision on Aug 02, 2018
The bill banning US government use of Dahua and Hikvision products has been passed by both chambers of Congress (House vote, Senate vote). The US...

Most Recent Industry Reports

2Gig Gun Lock / Motion Detector Tested on Aug 17, 2018
Safer guns for families and an opportunity for security dealers to sell more services? That is the aim of Nortek's 2GIG 'Gun Motion Detector'...
Video Analytics Integration Guide on Aug 16, 2018
Video analytics is hot again (at least conceptually) but integrating video analytics with VMSes can be challenging. This is especially significant...
Hikvision IP Camera Critical Vulnerability 2018 Disclosed on Aug 16, 2018
The same day that the US government passed a prohibition on Hikvision cameras, Hikvision disclosed a critical vulnerability for its IP...
ISS VMS / Video Analytics Company Profile on Aug 16, 2018
Who is ISS? In the past few months, they had one of the craziest ISC West promo items in years. Then, they hired industry veteran and ex-Dahua...
Chinese OEM Avycon Gets ADI Push on Aug 15, 2018
Who is Avycon? An American company? A Korean company? A couple of guys relabelling Chinese products? The latter is the best explanation. While...
Backboxes for Video Surveillance Tutorial on Aug 15, 2018
Backboxes are a necessity in surveillance, whether for managing cable whips, recessing cameras, adding wireless radios. But it can be confusing to...
Genetec Stratocast / Comcast 'Motion Insights' Examined on Aug 15, 2018
Comcast recently announced "SmartOffice Motion Insights", an extension to their Genetec OEMed cloud video service (covered by IPVM here). This...
SimpliSafe Violating California, Florida, and Texas Licensing Laws on Aug 14, 2018
IPVM has verified that DIY security system provider SimpliSafe, founded in 2006 and acquired in June of 2018 at a billion dollar valuation, is...
Ban of Dahua and Hikvision Is Now US Gov Law on Aug 13, 2018
The US President has signed the 2019 NDAA into law, banning the use of Dahua and Hikvision (and their OEMs) for the US government, for US...
Cut Milestone Licensing Costs 80% By Using Hikvision and Dahua NVRs (Tested) on Aug 13, 2018
Enterprise VMS licensing can be quite expensive, with $200 or more per channel common, meaning a 100 camera system can cost $20,000 in VMS...

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