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

[eye95]

Nice way to put words into someone's mouth.

How hypocritical of you.

Fair enough. So then, why should the jury nullify?

 

[eye95]

The teacher was stealing. He/she was not undressing. So he/she had "nothing to hide." Therefore, filming is OK.

Would you tolerate this kind of logic from the police? We all know the answer to that question!

The point is that the right to privacy exists, regardless of the behavior being done in private, until and unless the proper authority, a court, finds that there is probable cause to violate that privacy.

Even with the best of intentions, this girl broke the law and should be held to account.

 

[Griz]

Thank you for the serious inquiry.

The filming took place after the other girls had left. They are out of the privacy picture.
The student had already established the teacher was rummaging through their packs and came back to record the deed.

Jury nullification should weigh the intent of the law as well as the intent of the person. I think this law was to prevent an invasion of privacy, keeping others from gaining a sense of gratification at the unwilling expense of another. This is also not the intent of the girls filming.

Taking these facts into consideration, here is where I vote my conscience on the jury. Her intent was to film a thief, not to invade anyone's privacy.

 

[skidmark]

Too easy!

The student broke no law - the teacher had no expectatioon of privacy while stealing. The fact that it was taking place in a locker room is a red herring.

The video is admissable. The government did not ask the student to take it so the government could "avoid" the 4th Amendment search warrant issue. The student made the video and turned it over to the government. No "fruit of the poisoned tree" there.

stay safe.

 

[Ca Patriot]

The student broke no law - the teacher had no expectatioon of privacy while stealing. The fact that it was taking place in a locker room is a red herring.

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.



This penal code criminalizes the ACT of filming. It makes no requirements about the content or the actions captured on video.

Like I said before, this code has been used to convict people who merely placed a camera in a locker room and didnt even film actual people.

The high school girl broke the law.

Now, to counter the rediculous argument that a citizen does not have the expecation or right to privacy when they are breaking the law......does that mean when you are smoking marijuana in your living room that you have no expecation of privacy in your own home ? Does that mean that police can place a video camera in your home and if you happen to be smoking marijuana then they can claim they didnt violate the 4th because you were breaking the law ?

 

[eye95]

Thanks, CaP. skid is usually spot on, but he missed this one. The girl clearly broke the law. We may have sympathy for her motivation, but I want the message sent that you don't record in a locker room. She's a juvie. They won't send her to jail, but she should be convicted and be given community service and/or a fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[palerider116]

How about an education concerning the law for recording others? A conviction is over the top for a 15 year old girl who took the initiative to solve a crime. Her method may have not been legal, but you will never prove criminal intent.

A juvenile conviction can be harmful for job applications and college applications.

 

[eye95]

A conviction in juvenile court is decidedly not over the top. She did the crime. A conviction is merely an official recognition of this fact. I am not advocating that she should be incarcerated until age 18, just that there be a consequence for the fact that she committed a crime. Community service and/or a small fine will go a long way to educating her and others.

 

[nonameisgood]

California Penal Code 647 :
... with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside.

You all continue to overlook this clause. The girl had no intent to invade the privacy of the thief, and the thief cannot claim a right to privacy.

 

[palerider116]

Merely an official recognition... That is a remarkably shallow way of putting it. If anything, give deferred findings and a year or two of uniform good behavior.

 

[Ca Patriot]

You all continue to overlook this clause. The girl had no intent to invade the privacy of the thief, and the thief cannot claim a right to privacy.

When the girl started filming she broke the law because ANYONE, criminal or not, has an expectation of privacy in the area being filmed.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Thanks, CaP. skid is usually spot on, but he missed this one. The girl clearly broke the law. We may have sympathy for her motivation, but I want the message sent that you don't record in a locker room. She's a juvie. They won't send her to jail, but she should be convicted and be given community service and/or a fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Did you re-post on reddit and this was the consensus there?

The purpose of the law was not broken .. its function was for security....the law is quite clear on its purpose.

No facts plead indicate that anything other than the teacher was caught by the camera ...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Wy_BRFElc

 

[palerider116]

When the girl started filming she broke the law because ANYONE, criminal or not, has an expectation of privacy in the area being filmed.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Where is this codified in the U.S. Constitution? The right to be secure in one's criminal activity in a locker room is mentioned where specifically? Please enlighten me, oh great public defender of thievery. Prosecute the juvenile and let the thief go under the guise of the 4th amendment.

Please show me the right to reasonable expectation of privacy in a publicly funded school when committing larceny. If it wasn't in the locker room, would it be different?

 

[eye95]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Where is this codified in the U.S. Constitution? The right to be secure in one's criminal activity in a locker room is mentioned where specifically? Please enlighten me, oh great public defender of thievery. Prosecute the juvenile and let the thief go under the guise of the 4th amendment.

Please show me the right to reasonable expectation of privacy in a publicly funded school when committing larceny. If it wasn't in the locker room, would it be different?

Did you need to insult the man to debate his point?

Where in the Constitution? The 9A. The right to privacy is a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right, retained by the People. It is also recognized by the 4A, but the 4A provides protection from governmental intrusion into our privacy. State law provides protection against violation of that right by other persons. This is analogous to the Constitution requiring due process before the government deprives a Person of life, Liberty, or property. State law is responsible for providing protection of those rights agains violation by other persons.

Regardless of the act, it is the location that carries with it the reasonable expectation of privacy, even when committing a crime. The police cannot justify violating privacy just because they were investigating a crime and happened to catch the culprit. They cannot film you in your home because they believe they will catch you smoking dope--even if they end up catching you smoking dope. Only a court can allow them to do that, after there is probable cause. Neither could a neighbor record an individual in their home, again, even if they catch them committing a crime that the neighbor suspects that prompted the recording. In the cases cited above, it is the location, the home, that carried with it a reasonable expectation of privacy, not the activity that did away with it. In the case at hand, it is the location, a locker room, that carries with it a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the activity does not make it magically disappear.

We would be screaming bloody murder had the police, without a warrant, hid in a locker and videoed inside a locker room. That no one was undressing and that they successfully caught the perp would not matter one iota. We would have still screamed about rights violations. When the police do it, it is a violation of rights protected by the Constitution. When individuals do it, it is a violation of State law that protects our right to privacy from invasion by other individuals. This girl broke the law, invading the privacy of another, and should be punished for her law-breaking.

 

[skidmark]

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.



This penal code criminalizes the ACT of filming. It makes no requirements about the content or the actions captured on video.

Like I said before, this code has been used to convict people who merely placed a camera in a locker room and didnt even film actual people.

The high school girl broke the law.

Now, to counter the rediculous argument that a citizen does not have the expecation or right to privacy when they are breaking the law......does that mean when you are smoking marijuana in your living room that you have no expecation of privacy in your own home ? Does that mean that police can place a video camera in your home and if you happen to be smoking marijuana then they can claim they didnt violate the 4th because you were breaking the law ?

Sorry, folks, I've been down with The Cold From Hell. But better late than never.

The criminal act requires intent to invade the privacy of another. Says so right there in the law. If that were not the case, all those sports shows locker room shots would be illegal, no? I am still surprised at how the rest of you keep missing that.

As for the question of whether a citizen has an expectation of privacy while breaking the law - another "too easy" one! Only the government can violate your 4A rights. The government did not take the video nor did the government encourage, entice or otherwise cause the girl to take the video. No 4A violation. Just as if you were smoking pot in front of me in your house and I took a video of it and gave it to the cops.

Saying the location where the criminal act takes place may give an "expetation of privacy" would be tantamount to saying Jerry SAndusky should not have been convicted because his crimes took place in a shower room. Yes, it is as simplistic as that. Again, we have reins on what the government can do freely as opposed to what they need permission to do - but here we have no government involved. All we need to do is look at the intent, as specified in the law. The intent was clearly to obtain evidence of a crime, not to invade somone's privacy.

Still too easy.

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

Her claim of intent is clearly evident. She is not liable, or should not be held liable, under CPC 647.

No good deed shall go unpunished!!

 

[eye95]

She intended to video someone in an area where that someone, criminal or not, had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, she intended to violate that person's privacy and had the requisite intent under the law.

Intent does not have to be, "I intend to break the law." Intent is simply, "I intend to do this," when this is illegal. She intended to video when videoing was illegal. She broke the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Ca Patriot]

Okay first issue.....

Is the area that which was being filmed classified as an area where a person has an expectation of privacy ? I would say YES. The reason is its a girls locker room and girls change in and out of their clothes in front of their lockers. This is the same for both girls and boys in high school. If any of you DONT think this is an area where a person has an expectation of privacy then by all means go to a high school and film in these areas. According to you it should be completely legal.

 

[OC for ME]

An expectation of privacy, in a common area (not a individual "dressing" room), in a girls locker room.....hmm.

 

[Ca Patriot]

An expectation of privacy, in a common area (not a individual "dressing" room), in a girls locker room.....hmm.

You may be right on that. I would disagree though.

Can you point to any references that show locker rooms are "common areas" unless behind a closed door ?