By
October 10, 2014 8:45 am - NewsBehavingBadly.com

On Thursday, a  judge dismissed charges against a Virginia man accused of voyerism for allegedly taking pictures up women’s skirts at the Lincoln Memorial, saying that women should have no expectation of privacy in a public place, according to WJLA.

[su_center_ad]

“This Court finds that no individual clothed and positioned in such a manner in a public area in broad daylight in the presence of countless other individuals could have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” wrote D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna in her ruling (see complete ruling at the bottom of this article) on a defense motion to suppress evidence in the case against Christopher Cleveland.

Cleveland, of Springfield, Va., was arrested in June 2013 after U.S. Park Police officers said he appeared to be photographing women wearing dresses who were seated above him on the memorial steps.

According to court records, officers found numerous shots of women’s crotches and buttocks on Cleveland’s camera after his arrest.

However, the judge did not allow those photographs to be used as evidence.

McKenna wrote in explanation of her decision, “The images captured were not ‘incidental glimpses’ and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view,”.

McKenna added that although his actions may have been legal – his behavior was “disturbing”.

“The fact that the Defendant was intentionally photographing publicly exposed areas of women’s clothed and unclothed bodies…is repellent and disturbing,” she wrote.

Watch courtesy of WJLA:

Also on Thursday, a Georgia woman said she was shopping when a man crept up behind her.

“I turned my head and I saw that there was a man behind me with his hand up my skirt,” she said.[su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

60 responses to Judge Rules Man Who Took Photos Up Women’s Skirts Didn’t Violate Their Privacy

  1. Tommy6860 October 10th, 2014 at 9:09 am

    What a crotch ruling (every pun intended)!

    I disagree with this ruling vehemently! While I understand what she means by how people dress in public and that in certain positions, the view is going to be there, the intent was clear with the perp as it is a happenstance view, this guy was positioning himself for a shot. This ruling simply gives leeway to the pervs wanting to take up-skirt shots while giving the air that women are asking for exposure, dressing and positioning themselves in such ways.

  2. rg9rts October 10th, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Wonder how the judge would rule if it was his or hers daughter’s skirt

  3. Pundit456 October 10th, 2014 at 9:41 am

    More so than this perverts behavior is this judge. A woman wearing a skirt in public with her crotch exposed to public view is guilty of indecent exposure. Otherwise she should be considered sufficiently covered to convey the message that whatever is underneath her skirt is not for public consumption.
    Either McKenna is a member of the lgbt subculture or she feels compelled to make a statement about contemporary female attire (or both).

  4. Skydog2 October 10th, 2014 at 9:50 am

    “his behavior was “disturbing”
    That’s an understatement.

  5. R.J. Carter October 10th, 2014 at 10:03 am

    I agree with the outrage of this article. Taking camera shots up women’s skirts is not funny or for the public to view.

    http://www.alan.com/2014/09/15/miss-nebraska-accidentally-flashes-viewers/

    Uhm…

    • Tommy6860 October 10th, 2014 at 10:11 am

      Yea, when that article was posted, I didn’t think it appropriate, let alone as anything newsworthy. In fact it was creepy.

  6. dave-dr-gonzo October 10th, 2014 at 10:07 am

    This has to be the “Wait. What?” headline of the week.

  7. Carla Akins October 10th, 2014 at 10:35 am

    At the risk of the impending beating, the judge is correct. It’s simply the wrong charge and chances are that there appropriate charge is not available since the law is notoriously slow about keeping up with technology. This should be illegal and I am outraged the asshat taking these pictures is getting away with this but I am not willing to endorse manipulating /perverting the the law. It starts here and next thing you know its being used for nefarious reasons.

    • OldLefty October 10th, 2014 at 10:53 am

      the law is notoriously slow about keeping up with technology.

      _________

      I agree 100%.

      You always had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, and that included from mass media.

      So if you fell on the ice, in public, in an embarrassing manner, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy from the public eye, but you were safe from mass media, (if anyone caught it on film), and if the only entity who had the means to expose you to mass media (TV news outlets), wanted to use your footage, they had to get your permission.

      Can the photo taker post it on YouTube?
      With the whole body?

      Still….. the closeness required still seems intrusive.

      I think the “requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view” could be up for debate.

    • R.J. Carter October 10th, 2014 at 11:35 am

      If the exposure is there because someone’s trying to wear a belt and call it a skirt, and it ends up on camera, then the judge would be correct. If it’s a person with a pen-camera taped to the side of their shoe, for the purpose of violating privacy, then there’s a violation.
      Short form:
      Pictures taken horizontally: OK
      Pictures taken vertically: No-no.

      • Carla Akins October 10th, 2014 at 12:48 pm

        I agree, unfortunately is not how the charge was worded (as I read it) You cannot have an expectation of privacy in a public place. Had one of these women tripped and fell ass over teakettle with no panties…and I agree, some are belts masquerading as skirts.

        • Ayn Awnemus October 10th, 2014 at 1:33 pm

          Not to mention that the sad reality is today anyone can buy these micro-cameras and hide about 20 of them in their shoe and no one would know.

      • Robert M. Snyder October 10th, 2014 at 2:56 pm

        It is my understanding that the image sensors in modern video cameras are sensitive to infrared light in addition to visible light. This allowed some of the earlier cameras to see details that are not visible to the naked eye. Certain types of fabric, including some swimsuit fabric, is opaque to visible light, but translucent to infrared. It is my understanding that modern video cameras have an infrared filter in front of the image sensor which effectively renders the sensor blind to infrared and eliminating this problem.

        http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126782

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=faf_1385072214

        • R.J. Carter October 10th, 2014 at 3:23 pm

          That sounds like a problem that didn’t need fixing. 🙂

          • Robert M. Snyder October 10th, 2014 at 4:20 pm

            Women can operate those cameras too, you know!
            (beach + cold water + shrinkage = much laughter at our expense)

    • Ayn Awnemus October 10th, 2014 at 1:30 pm

      I think you’re right, Carla. But what is the correct charge? Harassment?

      • Carla Akins October 10th, 2014 at 2:17 pm

        I don’t think the law exists currently to adequately cover this intrusion. I remember a number of years ago a woman found a camera in her home – I think it was her neighbor that had set it up. Eventually they charged him with theft – of the electricity he used to power the camera because there was no law in place for the new phenomenon. These are things are state legislators should be working on.

        • Tom Button October 11th, 2014 at 2:13 am

          in your home thou that’s not exactly private. So it would be a case of invasion of privacy .

          Legislators shouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. they have better things to deal with like people actually getting raped and such. Why waste time because someone is “uncomfortable”.

          • Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 6:27 am

            Huh? I was speaking of a man, not exactly a stranger since he lived in the neighborhood – that put a camera in a woman’s home and watched her shower, sleep and go to the bathroom. Not his own home. At the time this happened there was no law in place to charge him with – only the electricity theft. And yes, they should have laws in place to deal with these types of crimes.

    • whatthe46 October 10th, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      “…is notoriously slow about keeping up with technology.” the only problem with that is, this has nothing to do with technology.

      • Carla Akins October 10th, 2014 at 7:00 pm

        Twenty years ago we didn’t have cheap small cameras capable of allowing this type of action-

        • whatthe46 October 10th, 2014 at 11:05 pm

          that part i understand. but, what’s there to keep up with, with what he did? and its not like she was on a beach in a bikini all spread eagle.

          • Tom Button October 11th, 2014 at 2:11 am

            keep up with not just this but there are people installing cameras in dressing rooms and rest rooms……… so she does have somewhat a point. But again as i said above there’s no need to try to keep up. No need to make laws until it’s a major issue.

            So what people are afraid of what CAN happen OMG let’s waste time writing up laws that make your underwear seen to pervs rather than stopping rioting.

          • whatthe46 October 23rd, 2014 at 12:22 am

            you’ve got issues that require a psych eval. NOW.

    • Tom Button October 11th, 2014 at 2:10 am

      Why exactly should it be illegal? wouldn’t it just be better if people didn’t feel violated because someone has a picture of their underwear?.. so what the thought that they will go home and beat off to it WHO CARES you will never know.

      same thing with leaked nudes you’re right technology is progressing faster than the laws but at the same time that’s a good thing because law makers tend to OVER REACT and they will end up making it illegal to use cloud storage for x-rated content(which if i’m not mistaken in the TOS of most cloud storage they even make you agree that you wont upload nudity anyway…I know microsoft was under scrutiny a while back because some GUY was topless on a beach and they flagged his account because of it.)

      but yeah long post short were becoming way to worry some about our selves and we need to go the other direction and make it less taboo……. walk around naked if you want to who cares if people are “offended” there’s no logical reason to be Other than you’re uncomfortable but they are uncomfortable with clothes so WHO CARES

      • Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 9:13 am

        That is ridiculous. Each person has their own comfort level, and if the wanted their panties exposed to the public they’d leave home without anything covering them. Someone furtively taking pictures up a skirt without their permission or knowledge is hands a down a violation against one’s rights – it’s simply that the law doesn’t properly address it.

  8. fancypants October 10th, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    According to court records, officers found numerous shots of women’s crotches and buttocks on Cleveland’s camera after his arrest.

    However, the judge did not allow those photographs to be used as evidence.

    McKenna wrote in explanation of her decision, “The images captured were not ‘incidental glimpses’ and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view,”.

    McKenna added that although his actions may have been legal – his behavior was “disturbing”.

    ————————————————
    I don’t think chris was found innocent He lucked out in court with a good lawyer [ this time ]

    • Tom Button October 11th, 2014 at 2:06 am

      yeah i think if they can prove that the other upskirts were obtained thru immoral means………which they wont. no reason to submit it as evidence the pictures themselve wouldn’t be illegal… yet… give it a few years being in a bikini will be illegal

    • Malrie Terrell Moore October 11th, 2014 at 2:19 pm

      stop making excuses for this judge and the perv…..just stop

      • Robert Merrill Taylor October 11th, 2014 at 4:40 pm

        Start reading and thinking. Just start.

      • fancypants October 12th, 2014 at 7:50 pm

        who said anything about the judge ? have you ever been in court ???

        • Malrie Terrell Moore November 4th, 2014 at 7:19 am

          just because im black dont mean i have ever been to court….#just saying

          • fancypants November 4th, 2014 at 2:13 pm

            lol

  9. Herb Sarge Phelps October 10th, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Of course if these women didn’t want it to happen they would have had on their burkas like the CHRISTIANS think they should wear. Welcome to the same religion that wants to have war on a religion that does the same damn thing, but more harsh since at least here there are enough sensible people to stop these hypocrites at least for now.

  10. whatthe46 October 10th, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    “I turned my head and I saw that there was a man behind me with his hand up my skirt,” she said…. i’d be on trial for assault. and this will only become a crime if it happens to this judge, another female judge, a female cop (out of uniform of course) or a family member of one of theirs. oh, or some celebrity, ugh.

    • Robert Merrill Taylor October 11th, 2014 at 4:38 pm

      Apples to oranges. Read the judgment.

      • whatthe46 October 23rd, 2014 at 12:19 am

        no it isn’t dipshit.

        • Robert Merrill Taylor October 23rd, 2014 at 12:42 am

          Stupid you are. reproduce you should not.

          • whatthe46 October 23rd, 2014 at 12:55 am

            looking in the mirror and talking to yourself eh? seek a psych eval. quickly.

  11. Robert Merrill Taylor October 10th, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    This photo and headline belongs on Faux Lies as it has NOTHING to do with the actual story.

    The judge
    ruled that these “views” were available to anyone at the Memorial and
    that the photographer did not have to undertake extraordinary measures
    to take the photographs. There is a difference between sneaking a camera
    underneath a woman’s skirt and simply photographing what is already on
    display to all and sundry.

    • Malrie Terrell Moore October 11th, 2014 at 2:17 pm

      so we know what you do in your spare time…..

      • Robert Merrill Taylor October 11th, 2014 at 4:37 pm

        You read neither my reply nor the judge’s reasoning, did you?

        • Ronald Woolever October 22nd, 2014 at 1:26 pm

          I read both. You are an embarrassment to society. Seek professional help for your perversions.

        • Malrie Terrell Moore November 4th, 2014 at 7:26 am

          the less stupid things things/people i avoid…the more smarter i become….funny how that works

    • Ronald Woolever October 22nd, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      Hello pervert. How’s your collection? Oh and what are you doing to that cat?

      • Robert Merrill Taylor October 22nd, 2014 at 11:44 pm

        You can see my collection here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobolink/

        • Ronald Woolever October 23rd, 2014 at 1:13 pm

          Do you really think I would click on any link you post? Apparently you like proving you are not only a pervert, but a stupid one as well. I repeat, seek professional help.

          • Robert Merrill Taylor October 23rd, 2014 at 3:47 pm

            Is there really any point in carrying on a discussion with a troll Mr. Woolever? Fell free to post a reply. I know how desperate you are for the last word.

          • Ronald Woolever October 24th, 2014 at 10:43 am

            You are right about this point sir. It is pointless for me to continue writing to a troll.

          • whatthe46 October 23rd, 2014 at 4:21 pm

            i’ve been telling him to seek help as well. he’s definitely a perv.

  12. Dosko October 10th, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    If anyone wants to call the “Honorable” Judge Juliet McKenna, and let her know what you think about her decision, here’s her phone number:

    (202) 879-0422

  13. Tom Button October 11th, 2014 at 2:03 am

    I just want to see their facebook pages. I’m sure like most girls they have pictures of them in bikinis for everyone to see. How is an upskirt any different?

    • Larry Schmitt October 12th, 2014 at 10:56 am

      I have a question for you. Are you really as big a moron as that question makes you seem?

    • Ronald Woolever October 22nd, 2014 at 1:23 pm

      What a moron. One can only hope if you to grow to adulthood(you can’t possibly be there yet) that you have girls for children. You would be shocked how quickly you view will change the first time someone does it to your child.

  14. ryan October 11th, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    This judge is a fucking moron. End of story.

  15. mmaynard119 October 11th, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    I live in Massachusetts which was the original source of this controversy. A judge ruled here that “upskirting” was legal, because it wasn’t specifically illegal in Mass. The Mass Legislature soon change that.

  16. Larry Schmitt October 12th, 2014 at 10:55 am

    Does that line of “reasoning” make sense to anyone? If a person sticks a camera down your pants, is that violating your privacy? How is that any different than what that scum did?

  17. Larry Schmitt October 12th, 2014 at 11:05 am

    “…and in fact were images that were exposed to the public…” How is a women’s crotch exposed to the public when she’s walking along minding her own business? The only people it’s exposed to is someone lying down under her, or some sneak with a camera.
    “…without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view,” He had to use his camera furtively, so no one else would see. Maybe it wasn’t “extraordinary lengths,” but he had to make a special effort to get the pictures.

  18. Ronald Woolever October 22nd, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    The judge is wrong headed at the very least. She should have done the right thing and then wait and see if her ruling is overturned.

    • whatthe46 October 23rd, 2014 at 12:15 am

      protecting her “record” for all the wrong reasons.