Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Clandestine Photographs Case | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with taking clandestine photographs, you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale is a skilled criminal defense attorney. He has 20 years of experience. Plus he’s the right kind of attorney for your case because he focuses his practice on criminal defense.
The defendant was charged with outraging public decency. A jury found him guilty and a judge sentenced him to six months in the county jail. The defendant appeals from the judgment sentence. Here’s a summary the facts of the case.
Security Walmart detain the defendant after observing his behavior. They deemed it to be suspicious. The defendant was one or through several departments in the store talking on his mobile phone in the other hand. The security person amply the defendant was taking pictures by placing the phone between the legs women wearing skirts. The women were not aware of what was going on. Scary did not find any photographs. The phone did not reflect photographs have been taken.
The defendant argued that the jury instruction to not properly recite the law. The charge cited that the defendant photograph women underneath addresses with a camera in a public place. A uniform jury instruction for outraging public decency had not been established. The defense proposed instruction setting out the elements the crime was rejected. The court adopted the states version of the proposed instruction.
Being charged with taking clandestine photographs can be embarrassing and ruin your reputation. That’s why you want to hire the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has offer. Attorney Stephen Cale works hard to get the best possible result for his clients. He is an aggressive criminal attorney. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.
The uncontradicted testimony this case is that the lead tax were at the very least clandestine. The alleged victims were not even where the lead tax being committed against them. In fact it was the perception that the defendant was attempting to be secret that brought his conduct in stores attention. The prosecution has the discretion in electing criminal charges to bring against the defendant. When their statutory options, the state can elect between those two options. But, when the choice is made, this prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the present case the state elected to prosecute under certain section which is a more general statute. The more specific statute could been used. Thanks this case did not support the elements of the charge defense. Because double jeopardy attached in this case, the only remedy is reversal instructions to dismiss.
Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Clandestine Photographs Case
In another case, the prosecutors charged the defendant with violating the State’s Peeping Tom statute. After preliminary hearing a binder for trial, the defendant filed a motion to quash for insufficient evidence. After hearing argument, the judge sustained the motion to quash and ordered the case dismissed. The state appealed.
So issue on appeal was whether the court’s decision to quash the information was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statute. Police arrested the defendant for situating a camera underneath the skirt of an unsuspecting customer a discount store. He two pictures of them with a camera. The statute was charged with offers examples where a person can originally expect such a privacy. This includes logarithms, dressing rooms, restrooms, and any place of residence.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the defendant’s conduct did not fall within the statute. That’s because the person photograph is not a place where she had reasonable expectation of privacy. When the just this dissented. Dissenting justice that was interesting disturbing that the court found there’s no response dictation a privacy to parts of person’s body especially where the person has purposefully covered to protect from public view. If talking up photos of a person’s face or outward appearance in a public place, but he could agree to reasonable expectation of privacy.
In turn, the person was walking around and admitted, they would doing any expectation of privacy. But when closed, there is certainly an expectation of privacy. Office decision does the state to women it is our to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy is what they have covered with her dress. The dissenting justice that was open seizing for peeping Tom some public places one to look under woman stress.
If you’re charged with any kind sex crime, you want a criminal attorney who focuses on criminal defense. Stephen Cale is just that person call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Cale is an aggressive criminal lawyer. He fights to get his clients the best possible result. Attorney Cale understands that your reputation and future are at stake.
You might also be vilified this kind the charge on constitutional grounds. One could argue that the statute was vague. It also argued that somebody is a First Amendment right to take the kind of photographs described the statute. This is not to say that people should not have some kind of protection. It all this kind depends on where the photographs were taken.
The statute has several parts. The first concerns any person who hides, weights or otherwise loiters in the vicinity of a certain area. That area consists of any private dwelling house, apartment building or other place of residence. Thirdly, the must be an unlawful a willful intent to watch, case, or look upon the occupants in a clandestine manner.
The legislature added to the statute to include locker room, dressing room, restroom or any other place where a person has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also added the phrase with willful and unlawful intent to watch, gaze, or look upon any person in a clandestine matter. Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor. The punishment is up to one year the county jail and/or a fine of up to $5000.