okay legal eagles, weigh in on this one......

[Ca Patriot]

Students at a high school are noticing that items are being stolen or going missing from back packs and clothing and lockers in the girls locker room during PE classes.

Students are accusing each other of taking things but nothing can be proven.

One day a 15 yr old sophmore girl decides to do a little "sting" operation and she hides in a locker and uses her cell phone to video through the hole in the locker. Her video catches a school teacher going through the back packs and clothing and taking items.

Student turns over the video to school and police and now there is an investigation.

Here are my two thoughts...... First, the student broke the law by secretly and covertly filming in an area where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

California Penal Code 647 :
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or
otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not
limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion
picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a
bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or
tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the
occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to
invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision
shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count
currency or other negotiable instruments.
(2) Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture
camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape,
film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another,
identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that
other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the
undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or
knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to,
or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and
invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which
the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(3) (A) Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture
camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape,
film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another,
identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress,
for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn
by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other
person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room,
fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any
other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other
person.


Secondly, the video of the teacher wont be allowed as evidence during a trial because it was illegally obtained.

http://gma.yahoo.com/california-student-catches-alleged-thief-on-camera--a-teacher-015412679.html

 

[Baked on Grease]

You may very well be correct, but that would only be if charges are filed. The school system can still fire the teacher on the evidence regardless of how the evidence is obtained. They are not constrained as a 'private' entity the same as the gov't I would think.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ADobbs1989]

I think laws like this are stupid when it comes to the ability to obtain evidence of a crime. IMO if your committing a crime you should be forfeiting your rights to privacy or any other rights you wish to invoke.

 

[Ca Patriot]

I think laws like this are stupid when it comes to the ability to obtain evidence of a crime. IMO if your committing a crime you should be forfeiting your rights to privacy or any other rights you wish to invoke.

So then you are saying its okay to videotape covertly in a girls locker room as long as its an effort to obtain evidence of a crime ?

 

[eye95]

Are you sure that the recording cannot be used in court. Yes, if the government illegally records "evidence," it is usually excluded. But this was not a government action.

Oh, and the girl who did the taping should be prosecuted. You don't get to break the law and violate the privacy of others just because someone else has broken the law and you want to catch them.

 

[Baked on Grease]

So then you are saying its okay to videotape covertly in a girls locker room as long as its an effort to obtain evidence of a crime ?

Here is a sticky question though... Assuming the person holding the camera is allowed to be there (a girl in a girl's locker room) and she is taping the 'common' area, is there really an expectation of true privacy? They are in an area where anyone can walk in and commune together without barriers that would give an expectation of further privacy, like a shower curtain or stall door.

I know we expect a certain level of privacy in such areas, but I do not know at what level of privacy that taping is and isn't allowed to happen.

The reason I say this is because in many jails there are camera's pointed right at the toilets. Even for people only being held while waiting for official charges to be filed (innocent until proven guilty). So these people are not convicted felons who have lost many Rights, yet they are not afforded this privacy and taping has not been prohibited...

I guess I am really just rambling here and throwing out my thoughts into the ether.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

[eye95]

Here is a sticky question though... Assuming the person holding the camera is allowed to be there (a girl in a girl's locker room) and she is taping the 'common' area, is there really an expectation of true privacy? They are in an area where anyone can walk in and commune together without barriers that would give an expectation of further privacy, like a shower curtain or stall door...

If the area is given any privacy at all, for example, boys are not allowed in, then folks have a reasonable expectation of that level of privacy. Taping erases even that reasonable level. The girl is a criminal, a petty one, but a criminal nonetheless. She needs to be legally slapped down. I know that, if this had been my daughter's locker room when she was in school, I'd be filing a criminal complaint and a civil complaint against the videographer.

 

[CO-Joe]

If the area is given any privacy at all, for example, boys are not allowed in, then folks have a reasonable expectation of that level of privacy. Taping erases even that reasonable level. The girl is a criminal, a petty one, but a criminal nonetheless. She needs to be legally slapped down. I know that, if this had been my daughter's locker room when she was in school, I'd be filing a criminal complaint and a civil complaint against the videographer.

Difference is, the thief probably faces less liability. Did she actually do harm, though? Assuming she edited out all but the parts turned into the school, she saw no more than she would on any given day, camera or not.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yes, there should be charges filed against the girl IF the video is allowed as evidence against the teacher.

My hope is that she would take it to trial and get a very small slap on the wrist.

If it's not allowed as evidence against one, it should not be allowed as evidence against the other.

Without the video as evidence, the girl is only guilty of hiding in a locker, in a room where she was allowed to be present.

Her intention was to catch a thief, not be a peeping tomboy.


I think she had good intentions and was probably frustrated that no one else would/could do anything about the situation. I can not say I wouldn't have done the same thing were I in her shoes.

 

[eye95]

Difference is, the thief probably faces less liability. Did she actually do harm, though? Assuming she edited out all but the parts turned into the school, she saw no more than she would on any given day, camera or not.

The crime comes in the recording. Editing it does not mitigate the crime.

 

[Ca Patriot]

I would propose a compremise. I say all charges should be dropped if the girl student can produce the other hours of videotape in the girls locker room during cheerleading outfit changes.

 

[Griz]

She should be prosecuted. And then the jury should nullify. S'what it's for.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Who needs film footage, when you have a student--the one holding the camera--witnessing the thefts.

 

[eye95]

She should be prosecuted. And then the jury should nullify. S'what it's for.

So, folks' right of privacy means nothing to you? Robbing someone of their privacy is every bit as despicable as robbing them of their property.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I would propose a compremise. I say all charges should be dropped if the girl student can produce the other hours of videotape in the girls locker room during cheerleading outfit changes.

The 15 year old may have opened herself up to some legal issues, if she filmed, in the womens locker room, individuals taking their clothes off.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you want videos of teenagers, changing, 'out'.

 

[razor_baghdad]

The 15 year old may have opened herself up to some legal issues, if she filmed, in the women's locker room, individuals taking their clothes off.

I would think it's fairly obvious she didn't film anyone in any state of undress. She waited to film when no-one was around.

In regards to this California Penal code: (which is the only CPC that could possibly be used for prosecution)

California Penal Code 647 :
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or
otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not
limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion
picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a
bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or
tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the
occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to
invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision
shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count
currency or other negotiable instruments.


I would think that any good lawyer could have this CPC thrown out as irrelevant to the case, and this is the only CPC that holds any relevance.

My thoughts.....Does a criminal in the process of a crime have "a reasonable expectation of privacy"? I'm relating this back to "the occupant". The occupant was a criminal waiting for the right moment (when no-one was around), to commit a crime. This would negate the term "invade the privacy of a person or persons inside" because the person or persons inside were not present in the locker room to change clothes/shower...etc, she was there to rob her students, which in itself is an invasion of privacy.

IMHO: Slap on the wrist for the student, fire and prosecute the teacher.

IANAL, but I will follow the case and research the resulting finding.

 

[Ca Patriot]

I would think it's fairly obvious she didn't film anyone in any state of undress. She waited to film when no-one was around.

In regards to this California Penal code: (which is the only CPC that could possibly be used for prosecution)

California Penal Code 647 :
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or
otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not
limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion
picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a
bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or
tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the
occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to
invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision
shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count
currency or other negotiable instruments.


I would think that any good lawyer could have this CPC thrown out as irrelevant to the case, and this is the only CPC that holds any relevance.

There have been convictions under this code in California when no one was even filmed. For instance, a janitor at a high school was convicted under this code for installing a camera. It was found by another maintence worker but there were NO images or videos on the camera.

Therefore, its the ACT of placing a camera and not the RESULT that is illegal.

Just think if a male adult janitor had done a "sting" operation and hid a camera to "catch thieves" in the girls locker room ? JAIL TIME

 

[motoxmann]

I read several versions of this story, and they all stated the same things in these regards:

after gym class started (nobody in the locker rooms), this girl stayed behind and hid in a locker to catch the thief in action. the thief turned out to be the teacher of that actual gym class.
this means this was occurring at a time when noone was even supposed to be in the locker rooms, so anything related to privacy may not even apply. there was no recordings of anyone removing clothing or anything of the like. recording started after everyone left, and stopped before anyone else entered (besides the thief of course).

personally, I think this girl was smart and did the right thing. all of the laws mentioned in the first post do not apply to this girl, as all 3 laws are directly related to "removing garments" and "expected privacy" [in relation to removing garments], and "intent to invade the privacy of". there was no intent to invade any privacy, and there was no intent to film anyone removing clothing. what the girl did was completely legal.
the teacher is currently on administrative leave while an investigation is conducted. the school has implied that the teacher will not be fired.

 

[Ca Patriot]

after gym class started (nobody in the locker rooms), this girl stayed behind and hid in a locker to catch the thief in action. the thief turned out to be the teacher of that actual gym class.
this means this was occurring at a time when noone was even supposed to be in the locker rooms, so anything related to privacy may not even apply. there was no recordings of anyone removing clothing or anything of the like. recording started after everyone left, and stopped before anyone else entered (besides the thief of course).

personally, I think this girl was smart and did the right thing. all of the laws mentioned in the first post do not apply to this girl, as all 3 laws are directly related to "removing garments" and "expected privacy" [in relation to removing garments], and "intent to invade the privacy of". there was no intent to invade any privacy, and there was no intent to film anyone removing clothing. what the girl did was completely legal.
the teacher is currently on administrative leave while an investigation is conducted. the school has implied that the teacher will not be fired.

This code makes no mention of requiring "removing garments"


California Penal Code 647 :
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or
otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not
limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion
picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a
bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or
tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the
occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to
invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision
shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count
currency or other negotiable instruments.


Did the girl use a camera to look through a hole or opening with the intent of filming a person in an area where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy ? YES.

The student is guilty of violating the above listed penal code.

 

[Griz]

So, folks' right of privacy means nothing to you? Robbing someone of their privacy is every bit as despicable as robbing them of their property.

Nice way to put words into someone's mouth.

How hypocritical of you.