Not two months after charges were dropped against an Oklahoma man who took photos up a 16-year-old girl’s skirt while she was shopping at Target, a similar Florida case has been thrown out which charged a man who used a mirror to look under a woman’s skirt at Barnes & Noble:
Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken’s accuser didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.
The law under which Presken was charged states, ‘It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.’
This is the same reason the Oklahoma case was thrown out, in which Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in his dissent:
“What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. . . In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman’s dress.” (Emphasis mine)
Looks like he was right.