03-12-2008, 03:16 PM #1Former Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
OK -Court Drops Case of 'Peeping Tom' in Target; Says Victim Was Not in Private Place
(Yes, I think it's a crime, so this is in the Crime forum!!)
OKLAHOMA CITY — A man accused of using a camera to take pictures under the skirt of an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl at a Tulsa store did not commit a crime, a state appeals court has ruled.
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. (more idiocy plus video HA kidding at link)
I'm sorry. I pretty much think I have a reasonable expectationof privacy of my private parts anywhere I go unless I'm in the bathroom by myself!!! I hope this happens to one of THEIR family members.
03-12-2008, 03:19 PM #2
What?? That's absolutely ridiculous!!! Isn't 'under her skirt' private???
Justice for Travis
Sometimes the first step towards forgiveness is understanding that the other person is a complete idiot.
03-12-2008, 03:19 PM #3Former Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
03-12-2008, 03:32 PM #4
What? It's not like it's private.....apparently.
So, this sick dude gets to exploit a 16 year old and walks away scot-free and yet a few unlucky guys have to register as a SO because they got busted taking a leak in the alley??Above is my opinion only
03-12-2008, 05:05 PM #5
This is UNREAL!
I expect what's up my skirt is private no matter where I am at!!!!!
I wonder how these judges would've felt if it was THEIR kid!
03-12-2008, 05:53 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
I can not believe that it is ok for some nut case to put a camera under a young girl's skirt. There has to be something the authorities could do to this person.
03-12-2008, 05:53 PM #7
What about the girl being a minor and the freak photographing her private area! Looks like that would fall under some sort of porn law since he was photographing or pedophilia. Some laws make me sick. I hope the freak doesn't escalate to even worse crimes since he now knows he can get away with all sorts of criminal behavior.
03-13-2008, 07:12 AM #8Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
"in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Considering it was her PRIVATE parts I would think that she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
03-13-2008, 06:09 PM #9
Oh he will hurt some poor girl. Slap on the wrist. Not even. So, yep unfortunately we will hear he physically, emotionally, and spiritually hurt a minor. Then again maybe something will happen to him next time he pulls that stunt. Glad to see our justice system working. Pfffffffttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!
03-13-2008, 06:21 PM #10
This guy has a good Blog regarding this. He's right that this will further jeopardize women and minors in general. That'd be girls. Meanwhile according to an obituary on Riccardo's father he has a mom and a sister. No doubt he has nieces as well. Just saying how'd he like it if somebody takes a photo under his mama's dress? Huh? Oh sorry back to the Blog.http://psycmeistr.blogspot.com/2008/...edophiles.html
03-13-2008, 07:25 PM #11
What is interesting about this is that part of the defense that Craig is using is that he should have had reasonble expectations to privacy in a bathroom stall. I listened to his atty last month reference a case where 2 people were charged with having sex in a dressing room. The charges were dropped because they were seen from a duct and they should have had the right to expect privacy within the dressing room area and so it wasn't having sex in public or whatever the charge was.
This is saying the exact opposite. I am going to do asome legal research on this very intersting topic.
ETA: here is the view of the ACLU on the Craig case and the right to expect privacy:
updated 8:38 p.m. PT, Tues., Jan. 15, 2008
ST. PAUL, Minnesota - In a legal effort to help a U.S. senator, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
Republican Senator Larry Craig is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport last year.
Craig was arrested by an undercover police officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.
By NewMommy09 in forum Crimes in the NewsReplies: 8Last Post: 01-27-2016, 08:43 AM
By Casshew in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 0Last Post: 09-14-2005, 05:22 PM
By mysteriew in forum Crimes in the NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-03-2005, 01:00 AM
By mysteriew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2004, 05:33 PM