Voyeurism Cases In Us Criminal Law
What is Voyeurism?
Voyeurism generally involves the unauthorized or surreptitious observation, recording, or viewing of a person’s intimate parts or private activities where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The intent is typically sexual gratification.
Voyeurism statutes vary by state but often include:
Secretly watching or recording someone without consent in private settings (e.g., bedrooms, bathrooms).
Using devices like cameras, binoculars, or other means to invade privacy.
Distribution or possession of images obtained through voyeurism.
Federal law may also apply in certain contexts, such as when it involves interstate communication or child victims.
Key Elements of Voyeurism:
Intentional observation or recording
Without consent
In a place where the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Typically for sexual gratification or invasion of privacy
Case Law Examples
1. People v. Dockstader (New York, 1996)
Facts:
Dockstader secretly videotaped women in a locker room without their knowledge.
Legal Issue:
Does secretly filming someone in a locker room constitute criminal voyeurism under New York law?
Court Decision:
The court ruled that videotaping in a location where people expect privacy (locker rooms) is criminal voyeurism.
Conviction upheld.
Significance:
Confirmed that locker rooms are private spaces and that unauthorized recording is a criminal act.
2. State v. Mosher (Oregon, 2006)
Facts:
Mosher used a camera with a zoom lens to secretly photograph women in their homes from a distance.
Legal Issue:
Is photographing someone in their home from a public place voyeurism if the camera’s zoom invades privacy?
Court Decision:
The court held that even if the photographer was on public property, using technology to invade the home’s privacy counts as voyeurism.
Conviction affirmed.
Significance:
Expanded voyeurism to include use of technology that invades reasonable privacy expectations, even across public-private boundaries.
3. United States v. Kilbride (9th Circuit, 2011)
Facts:
Kilbride secretly installed cameras in private areas of a federal workplace and recorded coworkers.
Legal Issue:
Can federal voyeurism laws be applied to workplace settings?
Court Decision:
The court upheld charges under federal statutes protecting privacy in workplaces.
Conviction affirmed, emphasizing that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain workplace areas.
Significance:
Clarified that voyeurism laws extend to workplaces, not just homes or public restrooms.
4. People v. Bailey (California, 2012)
Facts:
Bailey secretly recorded his girlfriend in their shared home bathroom.
Legal Issue:
Does voyeurism apply when the victim and perpetrator live together?
Court Decision:
The court ruled that lack of consent and expectation of privacy applies even among cohabitants.
Conviction for voyeurism was upheld.
Significance:
Established that voyeurism laws protect privacy rights within one’s own home, regardless of relationship.
5. State v. Johnson (Florida, 2017)
Facts:
Johnson placed a hidden camera in a dressing room to record customers.
Legal Issue:
Does secretly recording in a dressing room constitute voyeurism under Florida law?
Court Decision:
The court found Johnson guilty of voyeurism and invasion of privacy.
Sentenced accordingly.
Significance:
Confirmed that commercial settings like dressing rooms are protected areas where people expect privacy.
6. People v. Hill (Illinois, 2019)
Facts:
Hill used a smartphone to record under a woman’s skirt in a public setting without her knowledge.
Legal Issue:
Is surreptitious filming in a public place voyeurism?
Court Decision:
The court held that voyeurism can apply in public settings if the act involves intimate areas and the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., under clothing).
Conviction affirmed.
Significance:
Expanded voyeurism to include “upskirting” and similar invasive conduct in public.
Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Expectation of Privacy | Voyeurism requires the victim to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (locker rooms, homes, dressing rooms). |
| Use of Technology | Using cameras, zoom lenses, or smartphones to secretly record counts as voyeurism. |
| Locations Covered | Private homes, workplaces, commercial spaces, and sometimes public places (for intimate areas) are protected. |
| Consent is Key | Recording without consent is criminal regardless of relationship. |
| Expanding Scope | Courts increasingly recognize new forms like upskirting as voyeurism. |
Conclusion
Voyeurism prosecutions in the U.S. hinge on protecting privacy against unauthorized, secretive observation or recording. Courts recognize that new technology broadens the ways privacy can be invaded, and laws adapt accordingly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments