Voyeurism case, please help!

[Just Blue]

It isn't really "free advice" as the forum claims, You pay a price by being public humiliated by a few hypocrites and self righteous posers. Of course, not all who disapprove are hypocrites just those who feel the need to spew vitriol and wish prison on you.

You will need to fight this fight get a good lawyer and do what he tells you in the end I doubt you will do any time over a couple public upskirt shots. If the woman is in public there is debate about weather upskirt photos are illegal.

A debate by whom? Unless the debate is in the Supreme Court then it is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[GulfBreeze]

If the woman is in public there is debate about weather upskirt photos are illegal.

where do you get your info from?

obviously not from any laws in the US.

though not peeping thru curtains as a peeping tom, it appears to violate a person's privacy and is a form of voyeurism and is perverted nonetheless.

 

[mike_lee]

The Washington Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of two men for taking pictures underneath women's skirts at a shopping mall and a food festival. Calling the conduct ''reprehensible and disgusting,'' the court nonetheless held on Thursday that Washington's voyeurism statute did not apply to photographs taken in public places.

Just one example not meant to prove anything.

 

[CdwJava]

The Washington Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of two men for taking pictures underneath women's skirts at a shopping mall and a food festival. Calling the conduct ''reprehensible and disgusting,'' the court nonetheless held on Thursday that Washington's voyeurism statute did not apply to photographs taken in public places.

Just one example not meant to prove anything.

Okay, I'll match your irrelevant anecdotes with another out of state example - in California these photos ARE a crime.

Now, the question is are they illegal in Michigan?

- Carl

 

[quincy]

In Michigan, effective September 1, 2007, it is a felony to secretly photograph or videotape a person without their knowledge when these photographs or videotapes invade a person's privacy. The penalty for a first offense is up to 2 years in prison and/or up to $2000. Subsequent offenses are up to 5 years in prison and/or $5000. Posting these photos or videos on the Internet is a 5 year/$5000 felony.

This law is in response to the increasing problem Michigan has had with peeping Tom's like bleedingtears, who photograph with cell phones the underwear of unsuspecting girls and women.

 

[GulfBreeze]

The Washington Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of two men for taking pictures underneath women's skirts at a shopping mall and a food festival. Calling the conduct ''reprehensible and disgusting,'' the court nonetheless held on Thursday that Washington's voyeurism statute did not apply to photographs taken in public places.

Just one example not meant to prove anything.

post the case info and not just a statement. this is not an example until such proof is posted.

 

[mike_lee]

I plainly stated I wasn't trying to prove anything. Is your google bar broken? I never trust links from my opponent that was a big case you can easily find by typing "Washington supreme court, voyeur"

 

[moburkes]

I plainly stated I wasn't trying to prove anything. Is your google bar broken? I never trust links from my opponent that was a big case you can easily find by typing "Washington supreme court, voyeur"

We're not your opponents. You're not our opponents. We're not in court. But, YOU will be.