• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Invasion of privacy in the bathroom

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

I agree with Carl on this thread. Its kids being kids and punishment was handed out.

The goberment cannot solve all of our problems .. look at the wall street "occupiers" .. what do they expect to happen, what do they want to happen? They want everyone to be paid the same because everyone is equal? They want the government to control wages? Its communism and communist organizations are behind much of the protest organizations. Most people protesting don't know this ~ they are just angry folks who want to express their anger and I don't have a problem with that. If this country wants to go communist and the people demand it then I would be in the minority ...
 


quincy

Senior Member
I think, Free_Advice, that Carl is probably pleased to have you agreeing with him in this thread, although the latter part of your post really has nothing to do with this thread.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I believe I understand what you are saying, Carl, and I don't disagree that the police may be reluctant to file charges against the 6th grade boys, although they clearly committed a misdemeanor offense under Penal Code 647(j). They may also have committed a hate crime, this based on recent California cases that have argued exactly that in cases of bullying.

Although you said that the police "will be hard pressed to find a crime here aside from PC 647 (j)" and you said that the state is not likely to prosecute "if a crime can even be articulated," the crime is easily articulated.
You forget about the existence of PC 26 which will be another burden for the prosecution.

Even if an adult could be charged, we are dealing with two persons who BY STATUTE lack the ability to form the intent to commit a crime. Therefore, the state has to meet an additional burden proving that they had the requisite capability to form the intent. Not a difficult burden all the time, but in this situation, not as easy as you might think.

In civil invasion of privacy actions, it is the invasion itself that has caused the harm and the injuries are not always tangible ones. Many of the injuries are presumed by the nature of the offense. Damages can be awarded on the emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, etc. that has resulted from the privacy invasion.
The civil code section you cited pays damages (of which there appear to be none) and, under certain circumstances, punitive damages. A difficult burden when you are discussing minors as the actors.

I can understand the constraints that the school may be under. It is sad, however, if the school policies are such that a misdemeanor crime can only result in a two-day suspension (a slap of the hand and, as you said, Carl, just some time off from school for the boys to play with their electronic gadgets, if the parents consider the offense as you do - as a boys-will-be-boys "teasing").
That is standard for a first offense. And five days would have been the max. anyway. And what would have been accomplished by that?

With that said, there is not "nothing" that the parents of the videotaped youngster can do. If the actions taken by the school and the police are not deemed adequate by the parents, and their child is suffering fall-out at school from the "prank," there are civil actions that are available to pursue.
If the parent has $10,000 or so to risk on a roll of the dice, you are correct - they can give it a whirl. I wouldn't. But, I don't have that kind of money to throw away.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Fair enough. I agree that $10,000 or so is a lot to spend and I can understand why you would not pursue this for that reason.

I think the reason I responded to this thread in the first place was the way both you and mistoffolees responded - as if taking videos of a person in a bathroom stall and then showing this video to others was no big deal, mere teasing, what normal kids will do when given a camera.

This type of response to what is clearly a crime committed against a child and a blatant invasion of this child's privacy, and this type of response coming from a cop no less, is the type of response I am hoping the 6th grade boy does NOT receive by those handling this matter.

Videotaping a person in a bathroom stall is not normal and is not legal. Displaying this videotape to others and making derogatory comments about the person videotaped is disturbing. Period.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
I think the reason I responded to this thread in the first place was the way both you and mistoffolees responded - as if taking videos of a person in a bathroom stall and then showing this video to others was no big deal, mere teasing, what normal kids will do when given a camera.
Where did I say that? My only post on this thread said that since he was shown only from the waist up that the options for filing criminal charges were reduced - and that's a completely true statement. I never said it wasn't a big deal and that normal kids would do it.

If you're going to quote people, please do so accurately instead of simply distorting what they say based on your own biases.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I never once said it was normal or not a crime. I said it is unlikely that a crime can be (or will be) prosecuted, and aside from one disorderly conduct offense, it is unlikely another could be readily articulated.

Whether you like my reply or not, it is a simple fact that the law is as it is, and this is not likely to see the inside of a courtroom even if the officer felt this was the most heinous thing he or she had ever seen (and if so, I would question the officer's experience - and knowledge of juvenile law).

Likewise, neither the officer, nor the school, nor the parents can arbitrarily alter the rules under which the school must conduct itself and mete out penalties. The school board can exact a further suspension if they wish, but no more than 20 days in total and that would leave them with no more suspension days for the year. But, suspension - staying away from school - is often nothing more than a holiday if the kids are miscreants anyway.

Most schools have, and I believe all of them here are required, to have policies that address bullying and this could certainly fall within that realm. The school would still be within its rights to compel the child to attend classes or sessions on bullying, and depending on the program in place, perhaps it would be effective. Not knowing the kids involved or the specific details, it would be impossible for me to say whether I think the program might be effective.

Regardless of your belief that my thoughts on this are cavalier and dismissive, they reflect the reality of the legal situation as they exist in CA (provided the P has provided an adequate summary of the facts). I have spent more than a decade as a juvenile crimes investigator, am an educator myself, and have worked closely with the schools over the years to develop programs and policies to address deviant behavior in the schools. Obviously, I cannot speak to the policies and practices in every jurisdiction, and certainly not in other states, so mileage might vary to some degree - but not much, at least in CA.

Oh, and yes, kids are doing some pretty stupid stuff with those darn phone cameras. You might be surprised. For the most part these are being handled in house (at the school) and not being reported to the police. To me this kind of abuse with a cell phone is one of the reasons why they should sometimes be banned at school. They often encourage deviant behavior such as recording fights, pranks, embarrassments, etc.,, and then uploading them to YouTube and elsewhere. Indeed, they can be banned in CA schools and up until a few years ago they were prohibited entirely.

Yes, the kids involved should be punished. They should face discipline at the school, even greater discipline at home, and they should receive some sort of education geared towards addressing teasing, bullying, etc. No, I do not believe criminal prosecution is warranted. If that makes me a Neanderthal, I'll accept that. But, the hammer of the criminal justice system should not be wielded solely to spank a child who behaved poorly.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
Sorry, Mistoffolees. Your post only said that taking a photo from the waist up lessened the offense (which it doesn't).

Carl, re-read what you have posted. Your own words from your other posts refute what you say now you said.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I don't see it.

I never said it was NOT a crime. I never said it was "normal." I did say it was unlikely to be prosecuted. I did say the school is limited in the length and scope of its punishment. What more do you want?
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Sorry, Mistoffolees. Your post only said that taking a photo from the waist up lessened the offense (which it doesn't).
You are wrong - both in what you are pretending I said and in your interpretation.

What I actually said was:
And since he was only filmed from the waist up, that significantly reduces the criminal charges that could be filed.
And whether you like it or not, that's an absolutely true statement. For example, if they had filmed him below the waist, they could be facing pornography charges. Filming above the waist would not create that possibility.

I would appreciate it if you would stop misquoting me. Get all emotional and whiny if you wish, but leave me out of it.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Whiny and emotional, huh? I apologize for misreading or misinterpreting what you wrote, mistoffolees, but that hardly makes me whiny and emotional.

Carl, I will not post all that you said in your posts - others can read what you wrote and take from your posts what they will and others can read what I wrote and take from my posts what they will.

The bottom line for me is that it is a crime in all states, including California, to videotape a person in a restroom. In California, it is charged as a misdemeanor. Not only is it a crime to videotape a person in a restroom, a civil invasion of privacy action can also arise from the taking and displaying of such a video.

For tranclan911, despite comments made in this thread like "I know of no right to be free from teasing," the videotape that was made of your son, and the action of the boys as described by you, goes beyond teasing. It was a crime. Your son does have a right to privacy and this right was violated.
 

csi7

Senior Member
I agree, the son has a right to privacy in the bathroom stall.
The other two kids KNOW it is WRONG to stand over the wall, with a video recording, and pass it along.
That being said, the potential for "bullying" has increased due to the fact that the two boys were suspended for two days. Depending on how the school handles the situation for everyone, it can turn in a complete uproar.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Quincy, I stand by the statement that there is no "right" to be free from teasing. At least not as it applies to traditional "rights" as it applies in the state or US Constitutions. The school may establish their own set of "rights," but that does not grant it the force of law.

And people can wish this to be an offense worthy of summary execution. It is not. It is a low level misdemeanor at best, prevailing in a civil suit is unlikely, and a successful criminal prosecution is almost as unlikely.

The school has greater influence over the matter than the legal system, and the parents of the boys have greater influence than that. The goal here should be educating the children not trying to bludgeon them with a sledgehammer for a stupid and childish act ... did we mention that we are talking about children? Those are little people with a serious lack of maturity and self control and are prone to doing stupid stuff.

So, complain about it all you want. This is not - legally - all that big an issue.
 

quincy

Senior Member
And, Carl, I stand next to you with the statement that there is no "right" to be free from teasing. I move far away from you, though, when you imply that what was done here was teasing.

I am curious - Would you be taking this same stance about the bathroom-stall video if it were not a boy that was videotaped by these boys, but a girl instead? What if this video made its way to YouTube?

You again seem to be passing this off as an innocent prank. There is a very specific criminal law, a state constitution, an education code and tort law that says this is not an innocent prank. It is a crime and a two-day suspension does not adequately address the severity of the offense, IF that is all that is done - and I am hoping that the police agency, the school, and all involved (the parents and the boys included) take more steps than just this suspension. I suspect they will have to.
 
Last edited:

davew128

Senior Member
You again seem to be passing this off as an innocent prank. There is a very specific criminal law, a state constitution, an education code and tort law that says this is not an innocent prank. It is a crime and a two-day suspension does not adequately address the severity of the offense, IF that is all that is done - and I am hoping that the police agency, the school, and all involved (the parents and the boys included) take more steps than just this suspension. I suspect they will have to.
We're talking about 6th graders here. This is the 2011 equivalent of having someone pull your shorts down in gym class.

And as far as the youtube analogy, it would be yanked in short order as a TOS violation.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
It is beyond an "innocent prank" but it is not a heinous act of violence or a serious criminal offense as described here. Yes, it is teasing. They teased him about the size of his pee-pee and they took a video of him standing in a stall.

Maybe this is a huge issue in your state, Quincy, but out here this is not likely to gain any traction outside the school venue. The full power of the state is simply NOT going to crash down on the heads of a pair of stupid 11 year olds.

And, yes, I would be saying the same thing if it had been a girl taped by a couple of girls in the same way. The law would not change because of the gender of the victim.

And, understand, all because a tort might exist doesn't mean that it is either cost effective to pursue or that a victory is assured ... especially when we are dealing with minors which would substantially increase the burden on the plaintiff.

The schools and the police are limited in their response by state law. As I have mentioned numerous times, the only crime state on point is647(j) and even that might not be able to made because of the ages of the children. The school, on the other hand, has clear authority to act. They have already given two days' suspension. Only the school board can now approve a lengthier one, and I doubt that would be forthcoming unless this is common practice within the district. The moment they go that extra mile for one first offense (assuming this is a first offense) then they would have to consider it for ALL such offenses and they could land in hot water, legally, down the road. I have seen past practice issues screw districts over in the past few years.

This is an issue probably best addressed through the schools and the families, and not through the courts.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top