‘Upskirt’ photos legal, says Mass. high court

If you own a dress shop in Boston, prepare to file for bankruptcy.

The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled “upskirt” photos, the ones taken by perverts when women aren’t looking, are legal.

A Boston Globe article says the law making it illegal for men to surreptitiously stick phones and other image-gathering devices under women’s clothing was overturned Wednesday when “Peeping Tom” charges were dismissed against a man caught snapping pics on Boston’s public transportation.

The ruling by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court was unanimous.

Prosecutors are urging lawmakers, who are currently in session, to write a new law.

“No respectable citizen wants this situation to be allowed to continue,” said Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose office unsuccessfully prosecuted the criminal voyeurism case against 32-year-old Michael Robertson.

The court ruled that women in public places where security cameras are known to be in use have no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Also, the court ruled, current law requires the victim be photographed nude or partially nude.

“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” wrote Justice Margot Botsford.

Hmmmm … maybe “jeggings” aren’t so tacky after all.

More news from the Interwebs:

28 comments Add your comment

BenDaho

March 6th, 2014
2:59 pm

There’s gonna be a mad rush on small digitial cameras. I hear educators get special pricing!

Joe

March 6th, 2014
3:04 pm

Our country continues on its rapid pace to hell thanks to crooked politicians and judges.

Rochelle

March 6th, 2014
3:15 pm

Hey.. as long as they do not prosecute the women that retaliate… they take pictures at the risk of getting punched by a male friend of the woman, slapped, kicked stabbed or shot. Take pictures at your own risk and bring it on!

Don T. Care

March 6th, 2014
3:34 pm

So, let me understand–it is illegal to sneak a photo of a woman in her undies in the changing room of a department store because she has “an expectation of privacy”, but it is perfectly legal to snapshot those same panties on the streets of Boston (where Cheers was filmed by the way)?

cool, Mass-a-two-sheets!

Logical Dude

March 6th, 2014
4:06 pm

Quoting: “The court ruled that women in public places where security cameras are known to be in use have no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

It sounds like “reasonable expectation of privacy” is going to be used MORE AND MORE to invade many different areas of our lives. Don’t want the government spying on you? TOO BAD. You shouldn’t have an “expectation of privacy” when you go online, talk on a phone, or go outside.

coj

March 6th, 2014
4:10 pm

Bet guys just can’t wait to snap a pic of Justice Margot Botsford.

joe

March 6th, 2014
4:13 pm

Hey, if it’s fair game for the NSA, it’s fair game for everyone else!

Billy

March 6th, 2014
4:15 pm

LOL, more inane godless BS, as if there wasn’t enough aready. The vast majority of you people want to live in a freak show, so now you have it. Forget being careful what you wish for; it’s already here. Godliness has a few minor drawbacks, but any other system delivers a lot less overall satisfaction. Learn to enjoy it the best you can; thanks to the efforts of the ungodly, you’re going to be living in a system that treats you like an animal instead of a human with inalienable rights from now on. You richly deserve it, and what’s coming afterwards…(2 Tim 3:1)

catlady

March 6th, 2014
4:20 pm

How many of those public cameras are positioned to look up dresses? Yes, women DO have an expectation of privacy! Does this mean that men, by the traditional clothing, ARE safe? Do we need to wear burquas?

kbanks8704

March 6th, 2014
4:31 pm

Okay, it is rulings like this open the doors for people getting shot and killed for crap like this. Mark my words: There are going to be more people shot dead in public because of this ruling. If I was a woman and saw a guy/girl who is so far gone in lust doing this crap, I will confront them and have my boyfriend/husband beat the brakes of them.

gimmeabreak

March 6th, 2014
4:38 pm

The court ruled that women in public places where security cameras are known to be in use have no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” So if a man is in the audience watching a boxing match where punches are known to be thrown, he should have no reasonable expectation of not getting punched? Lunacy. Especially disheartening that the court voted unanimously…

LadyGAGADawg

March 6th, 2014
5:11 pm

There are many skirts and dresses that are so short you don’t even need a camera to get the same view. Never got that “upskirt” camera shot anyway. Has to be too dark and numerous blockages(like how I cleaned that up?) to make it viewable anyway. Guess somebody is already working on a man’s shoe now with a built-in camera in the toe, equipped with a zoom lens.

Bernie31

March 6th, 2014
5:13 pm

I think I better get MUH Gun and stand My Ground…Uh…huh. DEM rappers and thugs may be looking at MUH wife’s Goods…Never mind she weighs 300 lbs. I LUV Her an she is all mine…

uh..huh.

SassHattery

March 6th, 2014
5:41 pm

What Massachusetts doesn’t realize is that their court has just invited anyone and everyone (teacher, coach, bus driver) to take upskirt shots of it’s students. Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened HERE in Georgia. Think not? Google “student speaks out about instructor taking lewd photos”. The cops say the guy who took over 8,000 pictures and movies of his underage students didn’t commit a crime. Your kids go to “public” school and they’re clothed. Both MA and GA courts say they are legal prey even in their own class rooms.

White Ghost

March 6th, 2014
5:49 pm

Wow what a shot: underwear. Do they still make women/girl’s shiny shoes that reflect up under their skirts? If so, take a photo of their shoes if you’re so inclined. There’s no privacy in dressing rooms with the store’s surveillance cameras.

White Ghost

March 6th, 2014
5:54 pm

SassHattery: you surely don’t think this is limited to public schools. Catholic schools come to mind.

Anthony Weiner

March 6th, 2014
5:58 pm

I support the court’s decision.

Bill Clinton

March 6th, 2014
5:58 pm

I think the court made a very wise decision.

sanetown

March 6th, 2014
6:08 pm

there are more kooks and psychos on the streets than ever! im tired of this—I may move to oregon next year

Larry Wide Stance Craig

March 6th, 2014
7:08 pm

How about male up-pants photos?

Name (required)

March 6th, 2014
7:28 pm

Cheers was not filmed in Boston, genius. It took place there. That’s about it.

Richard Braswell

March 6th, 2014
7:49 pm

The truth…no one in our country today has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

ProudACLU

March 6th, 2014
9:39 pm

So you want the judges to “make” law? Interesting, cough, cough, Row V Wade, cough cough

The Geezer

March 7th, 2014
12:57 am

In my lifetime I have had a few women in short skirts that sat down and took my picture without realizing it. I smiled anyway.

Litt

March 7th, 2014
8:17 am

Time for me to get busy and invent the shoe cam. Seems like the market is “wide open”, if you know what I mean and I think that you do.

Crankshaft

March 7th, 2014
9:07 am

This is good news for Georgia Tech fraternities Phi Gamma Delta and Phi Kappa Tau.

Deborah Parsons

March 7th, 2014
10:32 am

Women dress half naked anyway. Bet they sale more thong underwear too!

Jenni

March 11th, 2014
3:59 pm

Well, if you are out in public it’s fair game I guess. Just be careful and don’t be such a “victim” – if someone does it to you just turn around and kick them where it counts, then forget about it.