Restroom Surveillance

[Guest Jerry]

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=20484

 

According to this article at the Data Lounge, a man in Columbus, Ohio, was convicted of public indecency solely because he stood at a restroom urinal for 47 seconds, which is longer than the police, who were secretly watching him, thought it should have taken him to urinate. The police said that he could have been masturbating, but there was no evidence of that other than the length of time he stood at the urinal.

 

Do any of you have any additional information on this incident? Is the article a fair description of what really happened?

 

Sometimes it just takes a while, for me at least, especially when I have to go really bad (like after I've drunk a large soft drink while watching a three-hour movie at the mulitplex). So now I have to worry that I will be arrested for peeing too slowly?

[bigguyinpasadena]

As far as I know the security Nazis are not allowed to set up cameras in the "private" parts of a restroom,since that is lewd&lacivious on their part.Therefore an over-zealous cop might arrest you(they can apperently hold you without charge for three days now)but the charges would never stick and you could then sue them.

They count on us being Big ol pussies and not questioning their steamrolling over our liberty.

The Cops have become super vigilant in these aspects of "crime" here in LA since Bratton took over,so much easier to bust some dude in a john than go after "gang"(read racist reporting)related crime.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Ok,read the article.I don't know if the story is for real,Datalounge is not always an accurate source(mainly a gossip site)and they are using a small gay rag as their reference.

If it is for real this could get interesting,but the acused needs to get a lawyer with some balls.

[+ Lucky]

" the acused needs to get a lawyer with some balls"

 

As opposed to one who's pissed off!

[Guest randaljohn]

This is very scary if it's true.

 

Maybe there's some followup we can do to see just how some cop makes the determination that 47 seconds is too long to start peeing?

 

Festina lente:-(

[Guest Bitchboy]

Obviously they've never suffered from prostate trouble.

[Flower]

> was convicted of public indecency solely

>because he stood at a restroom urinal for 47 seconds, which is

>longer than the police, who were secretly watching him,

>thought it should have taken him to urinate.

 

There has to be a LOT MISSING from the article. While things may be different in Columbus, Ohio than in Anywhere, California, they are still protected by Federal Constitution as well as having a due process requirement for their own state laws. There could not have been a CONVICTION for "public indecency" simply for standing at a urinal for 47 seconds--there has to be a lot more.

 

"Public Indecency" in most cases has some sort of sexual connotation and would usually be what is known in the law as a "specific intent" crime, i.e., he had to have indented to be indecent in public. At the very least, it would always be a "general intent" crime, that is, that he intended to expose himself publicly with or without any intent of being "indecent" or any intent of a sexual nature.

 

It would be unusual but not beyond the realm of possibility for an overzealous cop to arrest for standing too long at a urinal--BUT it would have to be a lot longer than 47 seconds and there would have to be other circumstances involved, such as a known sex offender, or a restroom area with a high frequency of solicitation or complaints of "indecent exposure" etc.--But even then, that by itself would not hold up in court and would not even go so far as to begin a jury trial, since a judge would quickly dismiss, and certainly never result in a conviction.

 

So as I said, there HAS to be more to it if there was a conviction--so take as along as you need to pee--and relax. (and if they arrest you, tell them Flower said it was OK) }(

[Guest Pulsator]

This story comes from a recently published decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals. The surveillance cameras were aimed at the open area of the restroom, and according to the court's opinion, the guy was caught on videotape masturbating. In fact, the court makes a big deal out of the claim that if he were masturbating while facing the urinal, the camera could not have picked it up, so he was masturbating facing out into the room. The judges say things like "what if a six year old boy came into the restroom and saw him masturbating?" The guy did not contest the claim that he was masturbating (hard to do, since he was caught on videotape) but argued that the law was not violated because, nobody else being present in the restroom, there was nobody to be "offended" by his activity. The court said that the issue under the lewdness law is not whether somebody was offended, but rather whether the guy was doing something in a public place that would offend somebody who came in to the room. A concurring judge said that he thought it was outrageous for the state police to set up surreptitious surveillance cameras in a restroom, but it wasn't unconstitutional, so she went along with the conviction.

[Flower]

> The guy

>did not contest the claim that he was masturbating (hard to

>do, since he was caught on videotape) but argued that the law

>was not violated because, nobody else being present in the

>restroom, there was nobody to be "offended" by his activity.

>The court said that the issue under the lewdness law is not

>whether somebody was offended, but rather whether the guy was

>doing something in a public place that would offend somebody

>who came in to the room.

 

The real question then becomes:

If Wood rises in a forest and no one sees it, did it really rise?" :+