Two years ago in Oklahoma, Riccardo Gino Ferrante was arrested for aiming a camera up a 16-year-old girl’s skirt while in a Target store. He was arrested and convicted of a felony.
Unfortunately, in mid-March four-fifths of Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals voted that no felony occurred.
Why?
Because “the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.â€
Now, being in a public place does remove or decrease one’s expectation of privacy. But ought that extend even to the private space WITHIN one’s clothing?
The court answered in the affirmative. As Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in his dissent, “It is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman’s dress.â€
This is judicial common sense in the age of Britney Spears? At least there’s still the knuckle-sandwich penalty someone might get.
If our court system can’t get this one right, everyone should agree that something’s wrong.
The judiciary must be independent. But it must be independent of the other branches of government, not detached from common sense, or all semblance of sanity.
Oklahoma legislators now seek to outlaw currently court-protected invasive and gutter photography. Should they also consider random intelligence testing for the judiciary? They have more than probable cause.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.