States Grapple With Video Voyeurs

Dec. 28, 2007— -- States are struggling to keep up with rapidly advancing technology that makes it easier than ever for high-tech Peeping Toms to spy on their victims, law enforcement and victim's advocates say.

Lawmakers have in the last few years begun to address so-called video voyeurism as a separate crime, adding stiffer penalties for modern day voyeurs. Today, in more than half the states, it is still only a misdemeanor in most circumstances to secretly take pictures of a person when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to the National Center for Victims of Crime, which tracks such legislation.

That has led to what some critics have called unfair results: a landlord in Florida who hides a camera in a DVD player to record his female tenants undressing faces up to a year in jail if convicted; a Kentucky teen who used a cell phone camera to secretly record a 15-year-old performing a sex act also faces a year in jail for the video recording, though he was charged with other more serious crimes.

"When you invade somebody's personal space and video them in such vulnerable moments, I think you're talking about pretty serious business," said Jason Larson, an investigator with the Bay County, Fla., Sheriff's Department, who recently arrested a landlord accused of secretly recording as many as 10 women, a which is only a misdemeanor under Florida law.

"You're invading somebody's privacy almost to the extent of any other sexual crime," he said. "For it only to be a misdemeanor is not a harsh enough penalty."

Changing Crimes, Changing Laws

States in the last several years have begun to grapple with the new technology. A total of 34 states make video voyeurism a felony, with added prison time, under certain circumstances, such as for repeat offenders, when the victim is a child or for distributing images. Voyeurs in some states have recently been sentenced to as many as 12 years in prison.

At least two, Illinois and Nevada, passed legislation this year to increase penalties. And more states are moving to penalize taking pictures of private body parts, even in public places such as parks and malls – dubbed "up-skirting" and "down-blousing" by some in law enforcement.

In some cases, laws had to be updated to cope with the changing technology. Older wiretapping laws were written to make it a felony to make an audio recording of a person's conversation without their knowledge, but these laws either did not address surreptitious video recordings at all, or only made making them a misdemeanor.

Some states are also beginning to criminalize taking pictures of a person's private body parts even when in a public place, such as photographing up a woman's skirt. Several courts have been willing to find a reasonable expectation of privacy in those body parts, even when a person is out in public. Those laws, however, have been criticized for their potential impact on journalists and other photographers.

"Technology is outpacing many of these laws," said Susan Howley, director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime. "We didn't imagine the need for some of these laws before."

Cameras the Size of a Pinhole

Advancing technology has allowed for ever smaller wireless cameras that can be hidden in practically anything, from a tissue box to a pack of cigarettes, said Todd Morris of Brickhouse Security.

People have been arrested recently for placing hidden cameras in everything from showers to DVD players to alarm clocks in apartments, public bathrooms and office buildings.

"They're nearly impossible to detect" without anti-surveillance equipment, Morris said.

Billy Rudolph Rich, 70, was arrested this month for allgedly placing a hidden camera inside a clock in a room he rented out to young women. The Bay County Sheriff's Office said the video recordings showed the women dressing and undressing and showed Rich, who has pleaded not guilty, playing with their lingerie.

"You can hide a device like this anywhere," said Larson. "I'm sure it happens more frequently than we're aware of."

Aftab and Howley said judges often do not sentence offenders to significant jail time for video voyeurism, even when they have the option. "We're seeing a general reluctance to put people behind bars for this," Aftab said.

Nevertheless, they say, becoming a victim of video voyeurism can have a lasting impact.

"All of us do things behind closed doors that we don't want everyone to know about," Aftab said. "When someone is abusing technology to hurt you, it makes you paranoid, you never know who to trust."