Secretly filming up a woman’s skirt ruled legal in America

Secretly filming up a woman’s skirt ruled legal by Court of Appeal in Georgia

'It is regrettable that no law currently exists which criminalizes [this] reprehensible conduct'

• Alexandra Sims 
• Friday 22 July 2016

• 

  Legal experts and Georgia officials have condemned the ruling Getty iStock

  A US court has ruled it is legal to film up a woman's skirt without consent due to a "gap" in the law surrounding invasion of privacy. 

  Brandon Lee Gary was prosecuted in 2013 on a single count of "unlawful eavesdropping and surveillance" after he was witnessed several times on CCTV footage taking video recordings with a mobile phone beneath the skirt of a customer while she was shopping. 

  Gary, who was employed by the supermarket when the filming occurred, admitted to the charge at a trial in Houston County Superior court where he was found guilty. 

  A spilt ruling at Georgia's Court of Appeal on 15 July reversed the invasion of privacy conviction against a Gary, after he appealed on the basis that he did not violate state law as it is written, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports. 

  Gary was prosecuted under Georgia's Invasion of Privacy Act, making it illegal to observe, photograph or film the activities of another person without consent when they occur "in any private place and out of public view". 

  The appeal, in which Gary asked for a new trial, argued that he had not broken the law as he had filmed the woman in a public place. 

  READ MORE

  • Girls wearing shorts underneath school skirts to prevent sexual harassment, warn charities
  • Man jailed for filming up women’s skirts with shoe-mounted camera
  • London receptionist claims she was refused work at UBS after she declined to wear a skirt and heels
  • Calvin Klein accused of 'pornographic' advert over shot up young woman's skirt

  The court ruled in his favour despite a lower court ruling that Gary's conduct was “patently offensive” and that “a woman walking and shopping in a public place has a reasonable expectation of privacy on the area of her body concealed by her clothing". 

  In Court of Appeal documents published by US news site Patch, Judge Elizabeth Branch writes: “The question before this court, however is not whether the defendant’s conduct was offensive; it is not whether a person walking in a public place has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to certain areas of her body; and it is not whether the victim’s privacy was violated.

  "Rather, the only issue presented by this appeal is whether the defendant’ s conduct constitutes a criminal invasion of privacy…”

  "[I]t is regrettable that no law currently exists which criminalizes Gary’s reprehensible conduct," she writes.

  "Unfortunately, there is a gap in Georgia’s criminal statutory scheme, in that our law does not reach all of the disturbing conduct that has been made possible by ever-advancing technology."