Man Pleads Guilty in Louisiana

[LuckySo-n-So]

2theadvocate.com | News | Photo taker says he’s guilty — Baton Rouge, LA

As with the recent post concerning the state of Texas, this has nothing to do with the moral fiber of the "offender."

I just find it difficult that someone can be persuaded to plead guilty to taking photographs in a public place.

What follows is Louisiana's "Video Voyeurism" law. It was one of the first in the nation (it also inspired a bad Lifetime movie starring Angie Harmon).

This is a horribly written law, but being a VERY conservative state like Texas, there is little chance of it being re-written.

§283. Video voyeurism; penalties

A. Video voyeurism is:

(1) The use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or any other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping a person where that person has not consented to the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping and it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose; or

(2) The transfer of an image obtained by activity described in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail, the Internet, or a commercial online service.

B.(1) Except as provided in Paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Subsection, whoever commits the crime of video voyeurism shall, upon a first conviction thereof, be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years, or both.

(2) On a second or subsequent conviction, the offender shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and imprisoned at hard labor for not less than six months nor more than three years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

(3) Whoever commits the crime of video voyeurism when the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping is of any vaginal or anal sexual intercourse, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, masturbation, any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or of any portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft of the buttocks, vulva, or genitals shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one year or more than five years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

(4) Whoever commits the crime of video voyeurism when the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping is of any child under the age of seventeen with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of the offender shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than two years or more than ten years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the transference of such images by a telephone company, cable television company, or any of its affiliates, an Internet provider, or commercial online service provider, or to the carrying, broadcasting, or performing of related activities in providing telephone, cable television, Internet, or commercial online services.

D. After the institution of prosecution, access to and the disposition of any material seized as evidence of this offense shall be in accordance with R.S. 46:1845.

E. Any evidence resulting from the commission of video voyeurism shall be contraband.

F. A violation of the provisions of this Section shall be considered a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541(14.1). Whoever commits the crime of video voyeurism shall be required to register as a sex offender as provided for in Chapter 3-B of Title 15 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.

Acts 1999, No. 1240, §1; Acts 2003, No. 690, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1245, §1.

 

[table1349]

Well look at it this way. Your a pedophile who has been caught. You have a large amount of photographs on you camera and video camera of 10-12 year old girls breasts and buttocks and the authorities found thousands of similar and perhaps worse photos on your computer. Add to that he admitted that he took these photos of little girls for sexual arousal and you have a classic pedophile.

Now ask yourself, would you want a court trial, open to the public, with the prosecutor bringing in and showing all of that evidence in open court? Even if the photos are redacted the purpose is obvious to everyone that is present. Very few cases like this ever goes to court. This is not a case remotely related to photography, it is a case of pedophilia that not only has relationship to not only photography, and videography, but computers as well. They were just tools that this person used to create the images that he lusted for.

 

[LuckySo-n-So]

Well look at it this way. Your a pedophile who has been caught. You have a large amount of photographs on you camera and video camera of 10-12 year old girls breasts and buttocks and the authorities found thousands of similar and perhaps worse photos on your computer. Add to that he admitted that he took these photos of little girls for sexual arousal and you have a classic pedophile.

While the guy may in fact be a pedophile, he has never been arrested or charged with being such. No "explicit" child pornography was ever found on his computer or in his home or person. He was arrested at a local water park for taking the photos, which led to the search and subsequent admission of guilt.

While we all may agree that this guy is a perv and has severe mental problems, I don't believe that he committed a crime. I think he had poor legal advice and lacked the will or financial means to take this through the courts, as you implied in your post.

This is not a case remotely related to photography, it is a case of pedophilia

It has everything to do with photography, or "taking photos" if you will. That's why the guy was arrested.

Also, according to LA law, anyone who views or transmits the Erin Andrews videos is subject to arrest, $10,000 fine, prison, and registration as a sex offender.

 

[needhelpeeps]

I despise pedaphiles with a passion. If someone is caught intentionally downloading child porn or ordering it, I am officially done with that person and will not lose any sleep if the person is locked up forever. However, laws like this have too much subjectivity and room for abuse. I know of too many people who have been persecuted for reasons that have nothing to do with them being criminals. A few years ago a disagreement with my boss (a small biz owner) and a city council member resulted in a surprise fire inspection and all kind of changes demanded. The councilman bragged about it to several people. Always before the building was just fine, so no I do not think it was a coincidence along with his bragging and the fact that he told my boss he was going to make him sorry right before it happened. Anyway, I don't want to risk a photographer being harassed just for taking photos. Of course, a jury should sort things out but once you've made the paper being arrested for something like this, the damage is already done to your reputation and could easily cost someone his or her small business or future job opportunities.

If someone is taking pictures of little kids near my house though they better watch out. The police might not arrest them but a mob of parents will kick some ass.

 

[table1349]

Well look at it this way. Your a pedophile who has been caught. You have a large amount of photographs on you camera and video camera of 10-12 year old girls breasts and buttocks and the authorities found thousands of similar and perhaps worse photos on your computer. Add to that he admitted that he took these photos of little girls for sexual arousal and you have a classic pedophile.

While the guy may in fact be a pedophile, he has never been arrested or charged with being such. No "explicit" child pornography was ever found on his computer or in his home or person. He was arrested at a local water park for taking the photos, which led to the search and subsequent admission of guilt.

While we all may agree that this guy is a perv and has severe mental problems, I don't believe that he committed a crime. I think he had poor legal advice and lacked the will or financial means to take this through the courts, as you implied in your post.

This is not a case remotely related to photography, it is a case of pedophilia

It has everything to do with photography, or "taking photos" if you will. That's why the guy was arrested.

Also, according to LA law, anyone who views or transmits the Erin Andrews videos is subject to arrest, $10,000 fine, prison, and registration as a sex offender.

So if a man uses a 20oz framing hammer to smack his wife upside the head is it an assault on the construction industry or construction workers rights?

The photography here was a tool. Walk down the street with a handgun in your hand and a ski mask in the other, you get noticed. Go to a water park with a camera and photograph other peoples little girls breasts and buttocks you might get notice. Invade someone's right to privacy, make an illegal recording and then transmit it or sell it, you might get noticed.

The followup investigation is what got him arrested.

If you possess or transport a stolen vehicle it is a criminal act. Are you suggesting that possessing or transporting an illegally recorded and released video does not rise to the level of a criminal act?

 

[Alpha]

There are some laws that are used as a work around of other laws. For example, the deportation of people who can't be convicted of terrorism. If this is indeed one of those, then I disagree with it in principle, for the same reason I disagree with the aforementioned deportation.

However, and this is a big however. The burden of proof in this law stated plainly. It must be proved that the recordings are for a "lewd and lascivious purpose." I would say that is a relatively high bar as burdens of proof go. Intent is always a tough one. Moreover, remember that this is a criminal law and the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar still exists. As such, in order to be convicted of this crime, one has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the recordings are for a "lewd and lascivious purpose." I think that's a fair burden of proof.

In cases like these, jurors do tend to be inherently prosecution biased due to the charges. In fact, they are in a lot of criminal cases, but especially sex crimes. But I don't see anything legally fishy about the burden of proof here.

I work in the legal field, btw.