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

[OC for ME]

If any girl, or number of girls, can enter at any normal time, regardless of who else is in there already, or if unoccupied, then it is not a private setting/space it is a public setting/space......for girls only. If only one girl at a time were permitted in the locker room then it is a private setting/space.

 

[carolina guy]

Making it overly complex

The girl should be charged with the crime she committed...they may decide to give her a minimal sentence, and that would be fitting. What evidence should be used to convict? The video she made. Once that happens, it becomes public record, and is effectively incontrovertible. It can then be used to destroy the teacher who was committing the main crime in question.

 

[davidmcbeth]

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.

+1

Yes. Plus no evidence that the person DID record any naughty bits.

The OP asked for "legal eagles" and mostly got "legal canaries"

 

[eye95]

The invasion of privacy does not have to include "bits."

But, again, you make pronouncements on the law without citing or reading the law. Check the law that has been posted several times in this thread. Show me where the recording of "bits" is necessary to the violation of privacy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[davidmcbeth]

The invasion of privacy does not have to include "bits."

But, again, you make pronouncements on the law without citing or reading the law. Check the law that has been posted several times in this thread. Show me where the recording of "bits" is necessary to the violation of privacy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I would be happy to provide this information via a PM ... but you said I couldn't so I won't.

I don't need to cite law .... the law is clear enough and the facts presented clear enough ... you are assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[eye95]

Thank you for helping me make sure that my point was well made. Moving on, except for one quick thing:

Since you opened the door to discussing this matter in public:

You have been banned from my inbox because I have zero respect for anything that you have to say and want any communications from you to be visible to the whole world so they can honestly judge your crap will full disclosure about any and all interactions between us. If you hadn't brought it up, there would have been no need for me to post that clarification. Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[davidmcbeth]

Thank you for helping me make sure that my point was well made. Moving on, except for one quick thing:

Since you opened the door to discussing this matter in public:

You have been banned from my inbox because I have zero respect for anything that you have to say and want any communications from you to be visible to the whole world so they can honestly judge your crap will full disclosure about any and all interactions between us. If you hadn't brought it up, there would have been no need for me to post that clarification. Thank you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

You are picky ... and if you disagree with my opinions that's fine ... "interactions"? hey look, you're not my type ... so cool the jets on wanting interaction with me in public .. that's just disgusting...

 

[skidmark]

OK- look at it this way. When in a locker room changing clothes yu have an expectation of privacy. No question.

After gym class is over, does the janitor who comes in to clean up have an expectation of privacy just because he is cleaning in a locker room? No.

Moving it a bit away from the school setting - when the sports teams throw their locker rooms open to the TV reporters, is there an expectation of privacy while the reporters are there? No.

The expectation of privacy comes NOT from the mere location, but from the activity engaged in at that location. Changing clothes/showering = expectation of privacy. Going through locker room while class is elsewhere so you can steal from their backpacks =/= expectation of privacy.

Why everybody seems to be falling for the red herring of "locker room = privacy" under all circumstances is beyond me.

stay safe.

 

[eye95]

Um...when the janitor goes into clean, he knocks and asks for permission to enter. That he does not barge in actually establishes that the expectation of privacy exists until it is specifically waived by anyone in there, or until it is established that there is no one in there with that reasonable expectation of privacy! In a locker room, everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy until they specifically waive it.

The reporters will not enter a locker room until, again, invited in. Once the reporters are invited in, the expectation of privacy has been explicitly waived.

The teacher had an expectation of privacy. He or she criminally used that expectation, but again, the right to privacy does not evaporate merely because one is committing a crime.

The girl in the locker committed a crime and should be held to account.

But, again, she did not make the recording at the behest of law enforcement. I don't see why it would not be admitted at the trial of the teacher who also committed a crime and should be held to account.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

She should not be prosecuted...

3 things must be present...Victim, act, and intention...

Skid is spot on.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Um...when the janitor goes into clean, he knocks and asks for permission to enter. That he does not barge in actually establishes that the expectation of privacy exists until it is specifically waived by anyone in there, or until it is established that there is no one in there with that reasonable expectation of privacy! In a locker room, everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy until they specifically waive it.

The reporters will not enter a locker room until, again, invited in. Once the reporters are invited in, the expectation of privacy has been explicitly waived.

The teacher had an expectation of privacy. He or she criminally used that expectation, but again, the right to privacy does not evaporate merely because one is committing a crime.

The girl in the locker committed a crime and should be held to account.

But, again, she did not make the recording at the behest of law enforcement. I don't see why it would not be admitted at the trial of the teacher who also committed a crime and should be held to account.

You should not be replying to such threads ...

COMMENT FROM ADMINISTRATOR: All are welcome to post here so long as they obey the forum rules.

 

[carolina guy]

OK- look at it this way. When in a locker room changing clothes yu have an expectation of privacy. No question.

After gym class is over, does the janitor who comes in to clean up have an expectation of privacy just because he is cleaning in a locker room? No.

Moving it a bit away from the school setting - when the sports teams throw their locker rooms open to the TV reporters, is there an expectation of privacy while the reporters are there? No.

The expectation of privacy comes NOT from the mere location, but from the activity engaged in at that location. Changing clothes/showering = expectation of privacy. Going through locker room while class is elsewhere so you can steal from their backpacks =/= expectation of privacy.

Why everybody seems to be falling for the red herring of "locker room = privacy" under all circumstances is beyond me.

stay safe.

Then they should try the student anyway...knowing the case is flawed, and knowing that the student MAY be found innocent. Let the defense establish the lack of expectation of privacy, since, on its face, the case looks like a conviction could be reached. After all, the school locker room is NOT a professional sports locker room. I think the difference in your examples is if the minors could legally give consent to be video recorded while undressed v. the adult athletes.

They will have to admit the video as evidence of the alleged crime, and regardless if she is found innocent, the video is still public record and can be used by the prosecution of the teacher.

 

[eye95]

Victim: The thief. Yes, criminals can be victims of the lawlessness of others.

Act: Recording into a locker room through an opening in the locker.

Intent: The student intended to make the recording. That she did not think it was illegal or that she was recording another illegal act does not remove her intent. Intent does not have to be intent to be a criminal. It merely needs to be intent to perform the act that, whether she knows it or not, is illegal. She intended to do what she did. What she did was an illegal act. She, therefore, had the required intent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Ca Patriot]

Act: Recording into a locker room through an opening in the locker.

Intent: The student intended to make the recording. That she did not think it was illegal or that she was recording another illegal act does not remove her intent. Intent does not have to be intent to be a criminal. It merely needs to be intent to perform the act that, whether she knows it or not, is illegal. She intended to do what she did. What she did was an illegal act. She, therefore, had the required intent.

this is correct.

 

[OC for ME]

It could be a female janitor and thus no permission is required.

 

[eye95]

It could be a female janitor and thus no permission is required.

:banghead: The expectation of privacy in a locker room is not dependent on the sex of the victim.

 

[nonameisgood]

There is NO expectation of privacy in a group locker room. There is only an expectation that one will not be exposed to public view. A private bathroom stall is different, as is a single dressing room.

The law states that the intent of the actor is an element of the crime. The actor obviously did not intend to make public anything other than the illegal acts of a trusted public servant, for which there was no realistic expectation of privacy (other than an implied attempt to conceal a crime, since the teacher did this when she felt she was alone.)

And let's not encourage prosecuting in the name of clearing an innocent person. That ties up courts and costs innocent people lots of time, money, and reputation.

 

[eye95]

The expectation of privacy is an expectation not to be videoed in secret through a hole in a locker, which BTW, is explicitly prohibited by CA law.

Videoing someone secretly from a locker room IS exposing them to the possibility, beyond their control, of public view.

Fail on at least two counts.

 

[Ca Patriot]

What if the student had not captured on video someone stealing from the backpacks ? She would therefore be guilty of a crime.

As Eye and myself have pointed out, the outcome isnt what does or doesnt make this girl a criminal. Its the fact that she did film secretly through a hole where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Great debate.

Is there any Cal case law where a person was convicted for filming, recording, etc a crime in progress?

Do motorists traveling in there vehicles have an expectation of privacy? If yes, why are PO not charged with violating that privacy during motor vehicle stops?
Anyway my question is a topic for another thread.
TIA

CCJ