Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man charged with digital peeping
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 | By Tony Plohetski and Sarah Coppola

Posted on 09/17/2003 8:07:06 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952

He used phone to take photos up women's skirts, police say

______________________________________________

In the crowded bar, police say, Brent Allen slipped his Sanyo cellular phone with built-in camera under several patrons' skirts, snapping photographs as the women moved about unaware.

The photos could have been e-mailed to a home computer and easily posted on the Internet by pressing a single button. Instead, investigators said, a bar employee who said Allen bragged to her about the images grabbed his camera cell phone and called police.

The employee, Christa Reynolds, told officers that Allen showed her one of the pictures and said: "This one is my favorite. She isn't wearing panties," according to an arrest affidavit filed Tuesday in Williamson County.

"The girls were wearing skirts; they were in a busy location; so all he would do is reach underneath the skirt and take the photographs," said Robert Hightower, a detective in the Austin Police Department's sex crimes unit, which investigated the July 26 incident at the Rhinos N Jocks sports bar on U.S. 183 in far Northwest Austin.

Allen, 42, of Cedar Park was released from the Williamson County Jail on Monday on a $1,000 bond. He is charged with improper photography, a felony punishable by two years in state jail and a $10,000 fine. Neither he nor his Round Rock lawyer could be reached Tuesday.

Officials said the case illustrates the growing problem of privacy violations by camera cell phone users. Gyms, concert halls and other places of mass gathering in Europe and Asia have banned the devices, fearing that high-tech peeping toms would take and distribute graphic photos of unsuspecting women.

In Texas, a state law that took effect in September 2001 prohibits such photography and videotaping for sexual arousal.

Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said Allen's case will be the first his office has prosecuted under the law. Before, the only similar laws governed child pornography, but no laws existed applying to adults who were secretly taped.

Bradley said people who videotaped lewd images in the past were sometimes prosecuted under obscenity laws, but obscenity is often more difficult to prove and carries a lighter sentence.

The Travis County district attorney's office has handled four cases in which people were charged with improper photography and videotaping.

The affidavit said Allen was using a Sanyo SCP-5300 phone, valued at $300. The phones, which have been on the market in the United States for several months, allow users to store about 16 images, according to a Web site advertising them.

Reynolds, who could not be reached Tuesday, gave the phone to officers, who obtained a search warrant to retrieve the photos, Hightower said. He said investigators recovered at least four shots taken under women's skirts, including the one Reynolds had seen.

Six other photos that were considered legal contained images of women's legs and feet, Hightower said.

Investigators checked Allen's call log and do not think the images were loaded onto the Internet before the phone was confiscated. Hightower said that during an interview with detectives, Allen acknowledged taking the photographs and said he was "just messing around."

Hightower said such invasions of privacy aren't a joke.

"That's the scary part about this type of technology," he said. "These type of photographs can be sent to an e-mail with the touch of a button and posted on a site within seconds of being taken.

"The public needs to be aware and cautious, and the users of the phones need to be responsible with their actions."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: builtincamera; cellularphone; hitechmirroredshoes; howsthepeeping; internetposting; jeeperscreepers; privacyviolations; voyeur

1 posted on 09/17/2003 8:07:07 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
So that's what Bill Clinton's been up to while the hildabeast has been in Washington.
2 posted on 09/17/2003 8:10:34 AM PDT by South40 (Vote Mcclintock, elect bustamante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Uhhhhhh..CanYouHearMeNow????????
3 posted on 09/17/2003 8:27:23 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
What the heck are women letting this guy put a cell phone under their skirts for in the first place? Maybe he told them that it was set to vibrate mode. :)
4 posted on 09/17/2003 9:05:03 AM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort
No, but I can see you now.
5 posted on 09/17/2003 9:05:41 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
"This one is my favorite. She isn't wearing panties"
I'm kinda partial to that my own self...

6 posted on 09/17/2003 9:09:06 AM PDT by Fintan (Someday we'll look back on this moment and plow into a parked car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Get used to it. Modern technology means the death of privacy, of all forms. If you want privacy, take your own measures -- including wearing underwear.
7 posted on 09/17/2003 10:08:03 AM PDT by AZLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
I think this could be a great new ad campaign for phone companies as a redux of the "reach out and touch" commercial.
8 posted on 09/17/2003 12:03:54 PM PDT by M. Peach (eschew obsfucation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Let's wait to see if there is a coverup involved.
9 posted on 09/17/2003 12:05:39 PM PDT by M. Peach (eschew obsfucation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Peach
I'm afraid any "reach out and touch" commercial would not go over very well. Not PC enough.
10 posted on 09/17/2003 12:06:40 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Clone Ann Coulter, the woman sent by God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
In Texas, a state law . . . prohibits such photography and videotaping for sexual arousal.

What about for art?

11 posted on 09/17/2003 12:10:00 PM PDT by Skooz (All Hail the Mighty Kansas City Chiefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Call me crass, but if the "lady" would just sit with her knees together, there's not much of a problem here, is there?

Oh well. Yet another reason I don't live in TX, I suppose. Dumb law.
12 posted on 09/17/2003 12:10:50 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention; Skooz
Oh well. Yet another reason I don't live in TX, I suppose. Dumb law.

We do have some dumb laws here, but many states have outdated and dumb or stupid laws. I got an email about dumb and stupid laws in various states, and there were some real doozies. One of the old laws in Texas makes it illegal to carry a wire cutter at any time. That goes back to the old west and the cattle rustlers.

I just wish we could get the legislature to pass a law to outlaw all dumbocRATS in Texas. Now that would make sense.

13 posted on 09/17/2003 12:18:50 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Clone Ann Coulter, the woman sent by God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson