Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
StankDawg

Restroom Surveillance Case Appealed

6 posts in this topic

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/...ml?record=20484

Sure this was a sting, but damn! :pissed: a lot of innocent people get caught up in this! They can film me taking a piss in a public restroom? This is sickening!!!!!!!! downright shameful. :(

:puke:

COLUMBUS -- A December ruling by the Seventh Ohio District Court of Appeals in Youngstown that gave police permission to hide video cameras in public toilets will be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, the Gay People's Chronicle reports.

The appeals court also upheld a public indecency conviction against one of thirteen men arrested in July, 2001 in a highway rest stop sex-cottaging sting operation conducted by local police and prosecutors.

Saline Township Police Chief Kenneth Hayes and Jefferson County Prosecutor Bryan Felmet hid video cameras inside the men's toilet light fixtures and conducted video surveillance.

One of the accused, James Henry, was convicted for standing at a restroom urinal for 47 seconds in May 2001. He is shown leaving the restroom without incident.

At his trial, prosecutors convinced the jury that because Henry stepped back from the urinal before fastening his pants, anyone entering the facility "could have" come to the conclusion that Henry was masturbating. He was summarily convicted of public indecency.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cameras in public restrooms, locker rooms, jail cells and dressing rooms constitute illegal searches and thus violate the Fourth Amendment.

But in a unanimous opinion, the three-judge appellate panel ruled Henry had "no reasonable expectation of privacy so long as he remained in the common area" of the restroom.

Henry is optimistic about his chances to have the ruling overturned by the high court. "We just have to get this thing away from southeastern Ohio," he said.

Henry's lawyer, Sam Pate, is less optimistic and expressed his disappointment that national civil rights groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, have not yet weighed in on this case.

And make sure you read THIS QUOTE from above as it bears repeating.

"But in a unanimous opinion, the three-judge appellate panel ruled Henry had "no reasonable expectation of privacy so long as he remained in the common area" of the restroom. "
:omfg: :omfg: :omfg: :omfg: :omfg: :omfg: :omfg:

Apparently we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom. Does that mean I can put cameras in the bathroom at that courtroom? Or better yet, Congress?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the accused, James Henry, was convicted for standing at a restroom urinal for 47 seconds in May 2001. He is shown leaving the restroom without incident.

At his trial, prosecutors convinced the jury that because Henry stepped back from the urinal before fastening his pants, anyone entering the facility "could have" come to the conclusion that Henry was masturbating. He was summarily convicted of public indecency.

47 seconds!!!

This guy should be in the wanking olympics not being put on trial.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 seconds!!!

This guy should be in the wanking olympics not being put on trial.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have probablt atken 47 seconds to piss b4... I cannot give a date and time, but on one of those holding out as long as I can to go to the bathroom before finally giving in time, I am sure of it.

That doesnt mean I am wanking it. :huh:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this guy took a piss then stepped back to fasten his pants?

There might be a problem if he stepped away and stood there flapping in the breeze for 47 seconds but it doesn't sound like it happened that way.

But this shouldn't even be an event to be questioned because there shouldn't be a camera in the bathroom in the first place.

And who really gives a shit if he was "wanking" in a empty bathroom?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where they might be worried about kids coming into the bathroom while some guy in a stall is pounding his pud. That is still no excuse for the surveilance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0