Hey, there! Log in / Register
MBTA: Alleged creeper takes advantage of trolley configuration to snap underskirt shots
By adamg on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 2:59pm
Alleged perv in action
MBTA Transit Police say this guy allegedly used his position at the bottom of the stairs on a Green Line trolley to snap an inappropriate photos of women between Lechmere and Government Center around lunchtime on July 5. Police are looking for him about his allegedly "secretly photographing partial nudity," which is illegal in Massachusetts and carries penalties of up to 2 1/2 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.
According to a police report, the alleged overweight slob took one photo up a woman's skirt and several of a woman's breasts when she bent over to pick something up. When this woman heard the clicking, she took out her own cell phone, snapped his photo and forwarded it to police.
Wanted poster, should you want to print some up and post them or something.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Secretive?
The guy is wearing all orange and the person across the trolley figured out what he was doing well enough to snap his picture and send it in. Doesn't seem so secretive to me.
No, not seriously.
naming your legs
I call one Lechmere and the other Government Center.
Before calling this guy a
Before calling this guy a perv and plastering his photo all over everywhere, I'd think that the standard of evidence should be more than a mere accusation by some unknown person.
It's not like snapping a cameraphone photo in public, as is alleged, poses such overridingly great harm to the public that we should dispense with due process and civility.
Agreed
n/t
Duhhh...this is what
Duhhh...this is what HETEROSEXUAL guys do.
An unhealthy hetero guy, yes
You've made your resentment of heterosexism clear to the point of tedium. Now they could use your help over at the Herald -- or is that too tough an audience?
Nevermind 1047
If he doesn't know the difference between heterosexuality and heteronormativity, I don't think we can help him.
Right...
Wait. What?
Black shoes with orange shorts?
How gauche!
Adam thanks for the link to
Adam thanks for the link to the statute. Section B reads:
(b) Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person's knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Emphasis added.
Not that I'm trying to excuse this behavior, but it does not seem to me that when, being on a public trolley, one can have any reasonable expectation of privacy. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think there is a crime here based on this law. I do hope he got kicked out of the house and is in the permanent dog house though.
I'm not a lawyer, either, but ...
I would think that even in public, you have an expectation that your privates will remain private. And one of the allegations is that he was taking advantage of his seat at the bottom of the stairs to take a photo.
"So photographed"
Meaning "photographed in this manner", or "photographed in such a way as to reveal one's privates or buttocks", could cover the behavior in question. Although one can't expect not to be photographed at all, one can expect not to have upskirt photos taken.
Not illegal
One, I find it hard to believe that there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy" on the T, or anywhere in public. That seems like pretty basic Fourth Amendment law.
Two, the statute defines "partially nude" as "the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola." So unless the downblouse victim was braless and the upskirt victim was wearing a thong or was commando, I think there's no case here.
Three, the statute requires the perp to do it "with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity." By leaving the "click" noise on his phone on, and by doing it sitting on the T, one could pretty convincingly argue that he had no intent to be secret or hide his activity.
Creepy, sick, and twisted? Absolutely. Illegal? Don't think so, at least not under this law.
i believe there is a reasonable expectation...
... that people won't be snapping photo's of your private parts. i expect it not to happen, and i'm a reasonable person.
and as for *what* he was allegedly photographing, you need a better understanding of women's undergarments. unless you are wearing boy shorts and a sports bra, standard women's bra and panties don't totally cover the entire buttock and breast area. for example, your bum shows a little in almost ALL underwear. and the area immediately over your nipples is often uncovered as well.
i dunno if he broke the law or not, but i sure think he breaks the intent of the law.
"What" was being photographed
Regardless of my understanding of women's undergarments, the law says what it says.
"Partially nude" requires areola -- "female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola." Rare is the bra that doesn't cover the entire areola, and that's what the law addresses, not "breast area."
"Buttocks" is a better question, regarding how much must be exposed, because the statute doesn't define it. Because it's not illegal to wear bikinis in public (which also don't cover much of the buttocks) one could argue that partially-covered butt cheeks are not "buttocks" for purposes of the statute.
Regardless of the intent of the law, it's a criminal statute, and it has to be interpreted strictly according to what it says, not what it intends.
Other laws may apply
This behavior is harassment and intimidation. Pure and simple. That is part of the thrill for these pervs - they feel entitled to harass women.
if you wear a bikini in public...
... i think it's safe to say that you have given up your expectation of privacy for the skin you have left uncovered. if you have skin that is routinely covered by clothing, i think having people get into random positions to take pictures of it violates your privacy expectations.
i do agree that the law is awkwardly worded. but i bet they bust him for it anyway. if they can find him.
If that's the case,
If that's the case, California Gurrls have no expectation of privacy, what with their sartorial choice of daisy dukes and bikinis on top. Perhaps they ought to consider a new way to make popsicles melt--I would recommend the "defrost" setting on any run-of-the-mill microwave.
superhuman
What if you don't have "human genitals or buttocks"?
Disagree
"Not that I'm trying to excuse this behavior, but it does not seem to me that when, being on a public trolley, one can have any reasonable expectation of privacy. "
You really think women should walk around with the expectation that it is reasonable from them to be photographed up their skirt every time they walk up a flight of stairs?
I think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy basically anywhere, even in public, that your genitals will not be photographed, unless you're exposing yourself (i.e., not wearing underwear and but wearing short shorts or walking around naked). Taking up-the-skirt photos seems like a violation of that expectation to me.
Wanted Poster
Note the file name: "Nudity Wanted."
Blame me for the file name
The original name from the T was something really long and full of dashes (and totally non-judgmental), so as I sat there at the Dedham Panera with my little netbook, whose little keys I'm still getting used to, I saved it under another name before uploading to the UHub server. Should've figured people would look at the file name :-).
Hey! Is that...
the dude from Man Vs Food? The bulging belly might suggest it is... I haven't seen Adam Rich without
his face covered in various sauces though, so I could be wrong...
C'est la vie
Yo también, pero no he tirado foto!
Happy Thighs
I'm so glad my thighs are so fat that they rub together. This guy wouldn't have gotten much of a picture up my skirt. I don't think globs of cellulite are a turn on... Which could also explain why he's taking upskirt pics on the T...
Rule 34 Conjecture
Are there websites devoted to "up veil" photos of chins, noses, and lips for those women among us who chose to pursue Extreme Modesty, Kabul style?
I hate to look.
I agree about the upskirts
But I don't agree that you should expect privacy if you're wearing so little, bending over causes what's nudity of the breasts. And I'm a woman.