Filming up women's skirts is ruled legal
BY TRACY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Jolene Jang was standing at an ice-cream booth at the Bite of Seattle festival two summers ago, unaware that a man had secretly lowered his video camera so he could film up her dress.
When she found out, she felt violated and hoped he'd go to prison. She became more leery of others. Now she's appalled that Richard Sorrells, the man found guilty of voyeurism for doing it, is no longer guilty of anything.
On Thursday, the state Supreme Court ruled that filming up women's skirts, though "disgusting and reprehensible," isn't actually against the law.
"I think that's ridiculous," said Jang, now 28, who lives in the Seattle area. "I feel a little bit vulnerable about it being known that it's OK."
The high court unanimously agreed the state's voyeurism law "does not apply to actions taken in purely public places."
It overturned the convictions of Sorrells and another man, Sean Glas, who was accused of taking photographs under women's skirts at a Yakima County shopping mall.
Sorrells already served his two-month sentence in King County Jail. He was court-ordered to undergo treatment for sexual deviancy and "intends to remain in treatment" even though it's no longer required of him, according to his attorney, Ken Sharaga.
Sharaga said the court's decision was correct -- it was what he argued last year, when he unsuccessfully tried to get the case dismissed.
"A citizen has to be warned by clear language in a statute that particular conduct is a crime in order to be punished as a criminal," he said. "Something can be wrong and offensive and still not be a crime."
The state's voyeurism law protects people who are in a place where they "would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" -- meaning the person could expect to be able to undress in seclusion or "be safe from hostile intrusion or surveillance."
But the court found the law doesn't apply to filming people in a public place, even if it's underneath their clothes. Read more