Catch-22...
|
DRJ at Patterico's points to a "peeping tom" case that was dismissed by the court because it took place in public, ruling that the law under which the person was charged did not allow for an expectation of privacy when in public. Patterico notes that this would mean that no one, even in public, has an expectation of privacy beneath their clothes (the offense here was someone sneaking a picture up a girl's skirt), and suggests that the legislature will rapidly correct the oversight by allowing for an expectation of privacy, in public, for people wearing clothes. Unintended Consequence: security scanning equipment, which uses sonar to create a detailed body image through a person's clothes, will violate the expectation of privacy and become subject to the 4th Amendment's warrant-or-consent requirements. Simultaneously, all of Hollywood's paparrazi will declare bankruptcy. |
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7264
No trackbacks have been posted so far.
No comments have been posted so far.
![[Valid Atom]](/weblog/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
![[Valid RSS]](/weblog/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}