SHERWOOD, Ore. -- Video surveillance captured a man taking photos up the skirts of unsuspecting women at a Target store last week, police said.
Sherwood police officers arrested 22-year-old Matthew Navaie on Wednesday night.
Security at the Target store in Sherwood notified police last week that a man had been spotted on store surveillance cameras trying to take photos from under women's skirts as they shopped, police said.
When the man returned Wednesday, Target security alerted police again, said Capt. Jim Reed, of the Sherwood Police Department.
Police said they stopped Navaie and arrested him on four counts of invasion of personal privacy, a misdemeanor crime.
Officers seized Navaie's cell phone and his home computer.
Detectives said they found child pronography on the computer, and he is now facing additional charges of encouraging child sex abuse.
Reed said it's likely that Navaie has other victims who may not know they are victims. Anyone with information is asked to call local law enforcement. ---------------------------------------
Not enuf pron on the internets? Lets take some pics of a older woman
SHERWOOD, Ore. -- Video surveillance captured a man taking photos up the skirts of unsuspecting women at a Target store last week, police said.
Sherwood police officers arrested 22-year-old Matthew Navaie on Wednesday night.
Security at the Target store in Sherwood notified police last week that a man had been spotted on store surveillance cameras trying to take photos from under women's skirts as they shopped, police said.
When the man returned Wednesday, Target security alerted police again, said Capt. Jim Reed, of the Sherwood Police Department.
Police said they stopped Navaie and arrested him on four counts of invasion of personal privacy, a misdemeanor crime.
Officers seized Navaie's cell phone and his home computer.
Detectives said they found child pronography on the computer, and he is now facing additional charges of encouraging child sex abuse.
Reed said it's likely that Navaie has other victims who may not know they are victims. Anyone with information is asked to call local law enforcement.
Guess he liked what he saw on Granny there huh?
IP: Logged
08:18 AM
hookdonspeed Member
Posts: 7980 From: baltimore, md Registered: May 2008
He should be extremely careful who he does that to in the future.
I saw a guy get his butt thoroughly and rather professionally kicked by a woman's boyfriend for doing just that in NY last summer. By the time the NYPD ran up to check the situation out, the guy was a bloody mess. The boyfriend refused to press charges and the cops let him and his girlfriend walk. I guess they felt he'd already made his point rather clear.
IP: Logged
10:01 AM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
Originally posted by Tony Kania: People speak of a "gateway drug". I believe this the the same ideology pertaining to pedophiles/rapists.
not really it certainly is a gateway of escalation of someone already inclined to such things tho - pedophilia & rapists are 2 completely seperate things and "up skirt" is a seperate fetish from the above 2. part of the "rush" is getting the shot. not the shot itself.
but - who knows what direction the little sicko will take when he becomes bored with "upskirt"....
I was under the impression that there is no "expectation of privacy" in public places and therefore if untouched, not illegal.
Based on that premise, standing on the corner wearing no more than a trenchcoat and a pair of kneesocks shouldn't get me arrested. I would think such actions would fall in the "lewd and lascivious behavior" and/or "public indecency" legal categories but, admittedly, I don't know enough about that area of the law to confirm that assumption.
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:
People speak of a "gateway drug". I believe this the the same ideology pertaining to pedophiles/rapists.
I would think a lot of previous lines would have to be crossed before one got to the point of shooting upskirt videos. If voyeurism could be considered a "gateway" to more extreme behaviors, one could surmise the same could be said for watching a pop star's music videos or the Dallas Cowboys' Cheerleaders' halftime show.
Don't get pissed, Tony....just sayin'.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 10-06-2010).]
Based on that premise, standing on the corner wearing no more than a trenchcoat and a pair of kneesocks shouldn't get me arrested. I would think such actions would fall in the "lewd and lascivious behavior" and/or "public indecency" legal categories but, admittedly, I don't know enough about that area of the law to confirm that assumption.
In United States constitutional law the expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "expectation of privacy," as a legal concept with a precise definition, is found only in U.S. case law. It is related to, but is not the same thing as a right of privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems (see privacy law).
There are two types of expectations of privacy:
*A subjective expectation of privacy is an opinion of a person that a certain location or situation is private. These obviously vary greatly from person to person.
*An objective, legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy is an expectation of privacy generally recognized by society.
Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person's residence and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses, or a phone booth.
In general, one cannot have an expectation of privacy in public places, with the exceptions mentioned above. A well-known example is denial of privacy for garbage left for collection in a public place.
While a person may have a subjective expectation of privacy in his car, it is not always an objective one, unlike a person's home.
The privacy laws of the United States include the notion of a person's "open fields"; that is, places where a person's possessions do not have an objective expectation of privacy.
Privacy and search: The expectation of privacy is crucial to distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment: governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.
To meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other words, the person asserting that a search was conducted must show that they kept the evidence in a manner designed to ensure its privacy.
The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.
The second part of the test is analyzed objectively: would society at large deem a person's expectation of privacy to be reasonable? If it is plain that a person did not keep the evidence at issue in a private place, then no search is required to uncover the evidence. For example, there is generally no search when police officers look through garbage because a reasonable person would not expect that items placed in the garbage would necessarily remain private. Similarly, there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials, although the Congress has enacted laws that restrict such monitoring. The Supreme Court has also ruled that there is no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (and thus no search) when officers hovering in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house conduct surveillance.
Boonie, in terms of privacy on a pure level, I don't doubt you're correct. However, in this instance, wouldn't the determining factor (or certainly one worthy of consideration) be the fetishist nature of the act? Like I said before, I honestly don't know.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 10-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:10 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Boonie, in terms of privacy on a pure level, I don't doubt you're correct. However, in this instance, wouldn't the determining factor (or certainly one worthy of consideration) be the fetishist nature of the act? Like I said before, I honestly don't know.
I think it deals with this line: The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.
Although that mainly speaks about leaving something out on the table for the police to read in your home ( home being protected as a place of privacy), without moving papers to see it.
My understanding is that you can take pictures of people in public. If they don't want something seen they must make a resasonable effort to cover it up. Someone can't sue you for taking a picture of thier boobs, if they are showing in a public place.
But I'm not sure either. I sure do like disscussing things with you though. It is always reasonable & polite.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-06-2010).]
Wouldn't looking up some woman's skirt with a video camera negate the whole "in plain view" aspect? If she's walking around with her butt exposed then I would imagine taking a picture of said butt would apply under those parameters. However, wearing clothing should, one would think, qualify as having "undertaken reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer."
IP: Logged
12:28 PM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
Is it taking a picture that crosses the line? For instance, consider an attractive women in a short skirt sitting across the room from you in a coffee shop. You can't help but notice the color of her panties. You do a double-take, then finish your coffee. As you leave, you notice (look at her) once again. Are you a pervert? If you took a picture are you now a pervert? At what point is a person's privacy invaded?
Obviously, the guy in the video crossed a line, but everyday, as a man, you have the potential to notice beautiful women. In the workplace, men can lose their jobs for simply looking at a women, if it makes them feel "uncomfortable". Unfortunately, it is that primal urge that drives us. Sometimes people take it too far. Does the internet help to perpetuate this perversion? Just google voyeur and see how many hits you get!
It seems to me that privacy and sexual harassment have some very blurry legal lines...
IP: Logged
12:29 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Maybe you guys are right on this. I would think the act of taking the picture surreptitiously would be the determining factor but am completely willing to defer to your views on this one. This is coming from a man who likes watching a woman leave a room as much as he likes watching her enter one.
Anyway...What do you think the chances are that the guy beats the case?
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 10-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:43 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Ahh geese, the loser went to a Target store (a step-up from Wallyworld). What happened? He chickened out on going to Macy’s or Fredrick’s of Hollywood? I hope they throw the book at him.
IP: Logged
01:21 PM
Raydar Member
Posts: 41332 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
not really it certainly is a gateway of escalation of someone already inclined to such things tho - pedophilia & rapists are 2 completely seperate things and "up skirt" is a seperate fetish from the above 2. part of the "rush" is getting the shot. not the shot itself.
but - who knows what direction the little sicko will take when he becomes bored with "upskirt"....
Next step. "sharking". Go ahead and look it up. Like most p*rn on the internet, most of its fake/setup/actors/actresses etc...
IP: Logged
09:08 PM
Back On Holiday Member
Posts: 6238 From: Downingtown, PA Registered: Jul 2001
Originally posted by Gecko: Next step. "sharking". Go ahead and look it up. Like most p*rn on the internet, most of its fake/setup/actors/actresses etc...
)
