Oklahoma Court: Women Don’t Have An Expectation Of Privacy In Their Skirts

The Whistler • March 13, 2008

That’s right, ladies. Not even the space underneath your dress is considered “private” when you’re out in public. At least according to judges in Oklahoma.

The state Court of Criminal Appeals voted 4-1 in favor of Riccardo Gino Ferrante, who was arrested in 2006 for situating a camera underneath the girl’s skirt at a Target store and taking photographs.
Ferrante, now 34, was charged under a “Peeping Tom” statute that requires the victim to be “in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt.
In January 2007, Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert ordered Ferrante’s felony charge dismissed. That was based upon a determination that “the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy,” according to the appellate ruling issued last week.

By the way, the girl being photographed in this case was 16.

Tags: Asshats, Cultural Marxism, Politics, The Loony Left

http://dougeefargo.blogspot.com/ dougee

sorry the woman would have no right to privacy.

not enough sleep last night.
Bat One

21 OC 1171:

B. Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Clearly, the problem is neither the prosecutors nor the statue itself, but the trial judge who misapplied the law in his ruling dismissing the felony charge.

What the Oklahoma State Legislature ought to focus on is not re-writing the statute to conform with the judge, but removing the judge in favor of one who will conform to the statute.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert

Can you impeach a judge for stupidity?
http://www.allfamilyrealty.com/ Realty

LOL, now that is interesting!
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I think this is a bad decision. Obviously from the dawn of time the rule has been you can’t peek under a ladies skirt.

That is different from ladies in short skirts flashing the entire room.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I would imagine the Oklahoma state legislature will have to clean up this situation the courts created.

I hope that the Oklahoma judges get a bit of bad press over this situation as they do so.
laydownSally

Lawyers, they introduce, pass, solicit and argue the laws; then they become judges and interpret the law.

Individuals clothe themselves because they have a desire for what is underneath those clothes not to be seen. The right of privacy is inherent.

This defense lawyer and the judge know this. Reasonable expectation of privacy was originally intended not just to deter lewd conduct. The intent of the law was clear as was Ferrantes intent.

This should be overturned by a higher court. Please.
richNJ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

’nuff said…….
Lestat

Your argument is imbecilic and unworthy of you. A Target store may not be a place where one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the area under a girl’s skirt most certainly is.

Well than if you read the law, he did not violate this one. How much do you want to bet that he violated a different law and the prosecution chose to charge him with this one?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

operative word, “legally.”
http://dougeefargo.blogspot.com/ dougee

Lestat, if there is no privacy under a girls skirt, then why are they called “private parts”? Anyone with a pea sized brain knows that this ruling was crap.

Does this mean that a guy could pull out a woman’s skirt or shirt to look down them? Cause by your logic and words, the woman have to right to privacy for those parts to be covered and kept hidden.

At least try to show some competence.
Bat One

The law requires you to be in a place where you have an expectation of privacy. Target is not such a place.

Lestat,

Your argument is imbecilic and unworthy of you. A Target store may not be a place where one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the area under a girl’s skirt most certainly is.
Lestat

You guys are wonderful.

You complain when judges don’t follow the letter of the law and than you criticize them where they do.

The law requires you to be in a place where you have an expectation of privacy. Target is not such a place.

It gives the lie that conservatives don’t want activist judges. They just want activist judges for their causes.
Hawk

So….let me get this straight. A 16 year old girl has no protection under the law from any creep who decides to walk up and stick a camera under her skirt?

The Oklahoma Criminal Code is books long. There were undoubtedly other crimes he could of been charged with. It was the prosecutions decision to choose this statute that was the mistake.
Marty

Does this mean I don’t have to take the mirrors off my shoes?
ollie-B

That’s great! Now I can legally wear a mirror on the toes of my shoes without being hassled. Whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pilgrim

So….let me get this straight. A 16 year old girl has no protection under the law from any creep who decides to walk up and stick a camera under her skirt?

I would suggest that this judge has some questionable personal tastes and issues that have caused this obviously flawed legal decision. In a nut shell, he’s probably a perv too, who sympathizes with the perp’s argument.

So, if this girl’s dad or brother or any other man who cared was present and beat the dog squeeze out of this guy, under Oklahoma law he’d be more of a criminal than the perv.

Incredible.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

That’s probably why Hillary took to wearing pantsuits.
What a visionary she is!
Hawk

This should be overturned by a higher court. Please.

There is no higher court in Oklahoma.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Oklahoma Court: Women Don’t Have An Expectation Of Privacy In Their Skirts

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments