Lilith
11-02-2002, 08:42 PM
By Jim Brunner
Seattle Times staff reporter
Men who try to covertly photograph up women's skirts may be sick, but they're not criminals, thanks to a recent Washington state Supreme Court ruling.
That could change very soon — at least in Seattle.
Seattle City Councilman Jim Compton yesterday unveiled a proposed city ordinance banning "voyeurism in a public place," or so-called "up-skirt" photography.
A person would be guilty of a misdemeanor crime if he or she tries to photograph or record another person's private parts in a public setting without that person's consent, according to a draft of the ordinance.
Hosting a public forum on the topic yesterday, Compton called "up-skirt" photography — which is often distributed on Internet porn sites — "almost too bizarre to imagine for most of us."
"There are creeps out there who would take illicit pictures without the consent of women and then sell the pictures," Compton said.
Yet the court ruling last month said that a state law targeting those voyeurs failed to deal with photographs taken in public places, where people don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
The decision came in two voyeurism cases, one at the Bite of Seattle at Seattle Center and another at a Union Gap mall in the Yakima Valley. In both instances, men were charged under the state law for taking photographs up unsuspecting women's skirts.
While the justices condemned the men's actions as "reprehensible," Chief Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote in a unanimous opinion that the state's voyeurism law, as written, did not prohibit the acts. The ruling drew national media attention.
Jolene Jang, the victim in the Seattle case, was shocked to learn the case was overturned last month. She told city officials yesterday she hoped they would quickly enact a new law.
Jang was with her boyfriend at the Bite of Seattle in July 2000 when she thought a man tried to steal her purse. Police arrested the man, Richard Sorrells, of Seattle, and later determined he had actually been trying to film up her skirt with a digital video camera.
Jang said police contacted her a few months after the arrest and told her they had found her image along with other "up-skirt" pictures on Sorrells' camera — including some images of children.
Sorrells was tried and convicted under the state voyeurism law, but the ruling last month tossed out his conviction.
"It's very frustrating, and it's embarrassing," said Jang, who has been outspoken about her ordeal on several national television shows.
Seattle police were also frustrated because they had investigated Sorrells regarding similar complaints in the past, said Detective Leanne Shirey, who heads a department task force on Internet crimes against children. Shirey and other local experts on sexual assault said yesterday that men who practice "up-skirt" photography are often also linked to other sex crimes.
But writing a law targeting voyeurism is not easy because of the constitutional protections on most actions done in public places.
"You have to be very careful," said City Attorney Tom Carr.
"We're trying to avoid impacting anyone's First Amendment rights."
The proposed city ordinance would narrowly target "up-skirt" photography, making it a misdemeanor crime carrying a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
The council will take up the proposed ordinance in December, Compton said. The state Legislature is also expected to take up a similar measure next year.
Seattle Times staff reporter
Men who try to covertly photograph up women's skirts may be sick, but they're not criminals, thanks to a recent Washington state Supreme Court ruling.
That could change very soon — at least in Seattle.
Seattle City Councilman Jim Compton yesterday unveiled a proposed city ordinance banning "voyeurism in a public place," or so-called "up-skirt" photography.
A person would be guilty of a misdemeanor crime if he or she tries to photograph or record another person's private parts in a public setting without that person's consent, according to a draft of the ordinance.
Hosting a public forum on the topic yesterday, Compton called "up-skirt" photography — which is often distributed on Internet porn sites — "almost too bizarre to imagine for most of us."
"There are creeps out there who would take illicit pictures without the consent of women and then sell the pictures," Compton said.
Yet the court ruling last month said that a state law targeting those voyeurs failed to deal with photographs taken in public places, where people don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
The decision came in two voyeurism cases, one at the Bite of Seattle at Seattle Center and another at a Union Gap mall in the Yakima Valley. In both instances, men were charged under the state law for taking photographs up unsuspecting women's skirts.
While the justices condemned the men's actions as "reprehensible," Chief Justice Bobbe Bridge wrote in a unanimous opinion that the state's voyeurism law, as written, did not prohibit the acts. The ruling drew national media attention.
Jolene Jang, the victim in the Seattle case, was shocked to learn the case was overturned last month. She told city officials yesterday she hoped they would quickly enact a new law.
Jang was with her boyfriend at the Bite of Seattle in July 2000 when she thought a man tried to steal her purse. Police arrested the man, Richard Sorrells, of Seattle, and later determined he had actually been trying to film up her skirt with a digital video camera.
Jang said police contacted her a few months after the arrest and told her they had found her image along with other "up-skirt" pictures on Sorrells' camera — including some images of children.
Sorrells was tried and convicted under the state voyeurism law, but the ruling last month tossed out his conviction.
"It's very frustrating, and it's embarrassing," said Jang, who has been outspoken about her ordeal on several national television shows.
Seattle police were also frustrated because they had investigated Sorrells regarding similar complaints in the past, said Detective Leanne Shirey, who heads a department task force on Internet crimes against children. Shirey and other local experts on sexual assault said yesterday that men who practice "up-skirt" photography are often also linked to other sex crimes.
But writing a law targeting voyeurism is not easy because of the constitutional protections on most actions done in public places.
"You have to be very careful," said City Attorney Tom Carr.
"We're trying to avoid impacting anyone's First Amendment rights."
The proposed city ordinance would narrowly target "up-skirt" photography, making it a misdemeanor crime carrying a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
The council will take up the proposed ordinance in December, Compton said. The state Legislature is also expected to take up a similar measure next year.