State v. Sopko, Minn.Ct.App., 8/11/2009. Mr. Sopko installed a video camera in an air vent in a women’s college locker room. He tested the camera by recording himself, then pointed it at the shower area. Someone found the camera fairly quickly – the same day – but not before the camera captured Mr. Sopko and seven women in the locker room. The state charged Mr. Sopko with seven counts of interference with privacy, in violation of Minn.Stat. 609.746, subd. 1(d):
A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
Mr. Sopko thought that the statute’s focus was the installation of the camera for the statutory naughty purpose; because he installed only one camera he could be charged with just one count. Not so. The appellate court relied upon an Alaskan Opinion that had reached a similar result, Knutsen v. State, 101 P.3d 1065 (Alaska Ct.App. 2004). The appellate court also said that the objective of the statue was not just to prevent the installation of the camera but to protect an individual’s privacy.
Peek a boo.
No comments:
Post a Comment