Defines the crime of surreptitious surveillance; rebuttable presumption that such surveillance under certain conditions is for no legitimate purpose

7 Co-sponsors

• James S. Alesi
• John J. Flanagan
• William J. Larkin Jr.
• Tom Libous
• Frank Padavan
• Michael H. Ranzenhofer
• Dale M. Volker

Title of bill

An act to amend the penal law, in relation to the crime of surreptitious surveillance, a class B misdemeanor

Purpose

To provide an avenue of prosecution against individuals who, observe others by means of unaided eyes or by means of an imaging device a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a spa, hotel, motel or inn, there is a presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose.

Summary of provisions

Defines the crime of surreptitious surveillance; rebuttable presumption that such surveillance under certain conditions is for no legitimate purpose.

Adds section 250.70, surreptitious surveillance which states that a person is guilty when for no legitimate purpose such person intentionally observes an individual with unaided eyes or with an imaging device, a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person without their consent or knowledge at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. These areas include: in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a spa; hotel, motel or inn.

Defines surreptitious surveillance as a class B misdemeanor.

Justification

"Peeping Tom" type crimes are difficult to prosecute as there is no particular law that covers each potential situation. An example of this recently occurred in Niagara County where the district attorney's office prosecuted a case, in December 2004, where the defendant was accused of deliberately looking over the top of a tanning bed wall at a young girl who was completely nude. He was charged with disorderly conduct but a non jury trial found him innocent. While the Judge found the defendant's actions reprehensible, the prosecution did not prove that the defendant's conduct did not create a Public disturbance. The Court of Appeals has held that disorderly conduct must be of a public not a private matter. The 1003 video voyeurism law "Stephanie's Law" did not apply because no mechanical or electronic device of any kind was used. "Stephanie's Law" also is not penal law. This bill will provide an avenue for prosecution of these cases where an individual watches someone for entertainment, amusement, to degrade someone or for sexual satisfaction - for no legitimate purpose.

Legislative history

S.257-A of 2007/2008; Passed Senate S.3336/A.5438 of 2005/2006; Passed Senate

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the first of November in the year it becomes law.