1060 users online (185 members and 875 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,234

    OK - Court Drops Peeping Tom Case in Target; Victim Was Not in Private Place

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337173,00.html
    (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.

  2. #2
    Hopeful One's Avatar
    Hopeful One is offline Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Nerd Town Central
    Posts
    12,231
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,234
    Here are the astute judges:
    http://www.occa.state.ok.us/

    Maybe next time they'll lift their robes up for the camera.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Taximom View Post
    Here are the astute judges:
    http://www.occa.state.ok.us/

    Maybe next time they'll lift their robes up for the camera.

    They shouldn't have to. We can just point our cameras up under them.

    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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    heaven bound
    Posts
    4,829
    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!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,807
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,189
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,188
    "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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CITY OF BROTHERLY SHOVE
    Posts
    17,500
    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!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CITY OF BROTHERLY SHOVE
    Posts
    17,500
    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


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,752
    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.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/



Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY CO - Wesley Cox, peeping Tom with a video camera, Boulder, 2008
    By NewMommy09 in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 08:43 AM
  2. Help place this case please!
    By rowdygirl99 in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-31-2013, 04:58 PM
  3. IL - Chocolate shop target of Peeping Tom lawsuit
    By Casshew in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2005, 05:22 PM
  4. IL - Nurse in peeping tom case slapped with new charges, Chicago
    By mysteriew in forum Crimes in the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2005, 01:00 AM
  5. Mont. Court Says Vomiting a Private Matter
    By mysteriew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 05:33 PM