FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Anonymous Cop

Anonymous Cop

Anonymous Cop is a veteran police officer in a big city Midwestern police department.



Mark Clark

Mark Clark

Mark Clark is the public information officer for a law enforcement agency in the southwest. He is also a photographer and contributor to POLICE Magazine.
Patrol

The Law is An Ass (At Least When it Comes to Photographing One)

Sometimes I think we have too many damn laws. On other occasions, I wonder if there aren't a few more laws we could really use.

March 17, 2014  |  by - Also by this author

Some years ago while out with the woman ill-fated to be my wife, I decided to make use of a men's room located off the Robinson's wing of the Puente Hills Mall located on the east end of Los Angeles County.

Making my way to the urinal, I was passed by a man who'd stepped out the adjacent stall in a hurry. As he did, I noted the presence of crumpled tissue paper on the floor about the toilet. The man's presence therein had not been diet-related—he'd felt no need to flush the toilet, nor did there appear to be a need for it—and I surmised that he'd been attending to some personal matter. Normally, this would not have been something I'd have felt compelled to concern myself with. Different strokes for different folks.

But after finishing my own business and rejoining the missus-to-be—hereafter referred to as the wife for streamlining purposes—I noticed that the man was following us. Emerging from Robinson's and into one of the mall's upper wings, the wife and I meandered as the man conducted himself in similar fashion, his peregrination mirroring ours and keeping him within 40 feet of us. I became aware of a low surge of adrenaline coursing through my system but refrained from saying anything about the man lest I appear even more paranoid than usual.

Veering into a bookstore, I led my wife toward the back.

The man followed.

We found ourselves situated between a couple of bookshelves where I feigned interest in a copy of "Real men Don't Eat Quiche." That was when the man rounded the opposite end of the aisle so that my wife was now between us. My head remained canted toward the books even as my eyes were fixated on the man whose own head was canted toward the opposing set of books across the narrow aisle. Nonetheless, I could see that his eyes were occupied elsewhere, as well—namely on the wife's legs. Suddenly his hand shot down toward the floor and between her ankles so that it brushed against one, startling her. As it did, I saw an object in its upturned palm which his fingers seemed to compress upon.

"Excuse me," the man said in a half-assed attempt to extricate himself from the aisle. But it was too late. I grabbed him and asked him what he had in his hand. He stammered and attempted to pull away.

"Nothing!" the man protested. "Let me go!"

No dice. Reasserting my grip on his lower arm I pried open his fingers to find a then state-of-the-art micro-camera clutched therein.

It turned out that the man was at the forefront of what has since been come to be known as "up skirt" photography—and he was using our military's tools to conduct it. I guess being a commander in the U.S. Navy has its perks. The Industry Station deputy who showed up and took him into custody recovered an additional three rolls of undeveloped film from the man's pockets. Charged with the only statutory relief available at the time—"lewd behavior"—the man pleaded nolo contendre and paid a hefty fine.

This trip down memory lane was prompted by a recent case decision out of Massachusetts' highest court. The case involved a desperate bottom-feeder who in the absence of charm, manners, or anything resembling a life had been taking cellphone photos up the skirts of female commuters on the Boston subway. The court ruled in his favor. Its rationale: The women were not nude or partially nude.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I am no prude. I actually appreciate those salacious e-mails forwarded from friends marked "CAUTION," still look at Playboy for the pictures (despite the pernicious accusations of those who contend I read the articles), and haven't blinked at seeing a nude woman since Kathy Bates dropped her towel in "About Schmidt" (an image nonetheless seared in memory).

But there is a considerable distance between women who of some mercenary motive choose to display their wares before the camera lens and those who don't. To my mind, this legal decision is one step removed from "she asked for it" rape defenses of old. No woman should have to purge her wardrobe for fear that some weirdo is going to be at liberty to take opportune snapshots of her diaphanous undies. Or, if her sartorial tastes run along celebrity lines, the lack of any (Which begs the question: What if the victims in the case weren't wearing any? How would that have affected the judge's verdict?).

State legislators are supposedly at work crafting a bill that'll address the deficiencies of current state law. In the interim, I  wonder: Well, what the hell has the state been relying on for the past 25 years? Are there not other applicable statutes for which such lowlifes can be taken off the streets?

I hope so. Because if there wasn't, I might well have had to beat the shit out of the son-of-a-bitch who photographed my wife in this day and age.

(By the way, that title is not just my latest desperate attempt at a salacious one. It's a homage to Dickens. That I feel obliged to explain this is testimonial to something. I think.)


Comments (6)

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6

Dan Nolan @ 3/19/2014 9:59 AM

Similar events have occurred during my career. Disgusting individuals that did the very act described. Sometimes the victim was a child. You just want to take off the badge and " adjust " the individual, but we aren't made of that cloth.The courts take a lame approach to these offenses which can easily be a stepping stone to more serious crimes. A pervert is just that and can evolve quickly if not put in check. I salute you Sir for taking the initiative. The courts failed you and your wife.

Henderson Cooper @ 3/22/2014 9:20 AM

I salute you as well. These perverts don't know that the victim do or do not have under garments. It is the intent that should be the issue.

Your restraint is commendable.

James @ 3/22/2014 10:35 AM

I will ponder a guess here... The legislatures of the 50 states will mostly do nothing and the Federal Government IE Congress and the Senate will sit on their hands until one of these creeps are beat to death or shot by a victim or relative, then the Federal reaction will NOT be to outlaw such sick perverted behaviors, but they will instead demand we surrender our guns.

There is a sickness in our Political arena today where the focus of rights only extend to the sickos and criminals.

It is high time we bring back the death penalty in all 50 states and demand sickos be punished for this sick behavior as well. I think it should be mandatory prison time for upskirting because these sickos are not going to stop at adult women as we all know. This behavior once started will culminate to victimizing children as well, from upskirting to under the bathroom stall victimizing little boys. This needs to be outlawed NOW before it gets out of hand.

Capt. Crunch @ 3/22/2014 11:10 AM

I also salute you sir, I don't know what's wrong with the law, I would think that if a female wanted someone to see her underwear she would not wear outer clothing. I wonder if you would have charged the suspect with " Disturbing the Peace" or Battery" because he brushed against your wife's ankle if that would have flew in court.

Larry Thompson @ 3/22/2014 2:22 PM

I guess the term "for sexual gratification" meant nothing to the idiot judges in Massachusetts. That's just one more step to legalizing perverted behavior of any kind. Kudos to you for maintaining your temper.

Jack Betz @ 3/22/2014 8:18 PM

We have a law on the books that covers that, thou without any penality.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

Fine Line Between Lawful and Unlawful Protests
There will always be issues and decisions that every citizen may not agree with – it is...
Aimpoint Micro T-2 Red-Dot Optic
With its Micro T-2, Aimpoint has taken a proven winner and made it even better by adding...
Fueling the Flames in Ferguson
So far I have exercised what I consider "commendable restraint" in holding back my public...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine