Court: Naked People Have Privacy Rights
Kadir Anlayisli stands with colleagues in the internet cafe in the district of Neukoelln in Berlin, Germany, Monday, June 4, 2012, where he recognized Luka Rocco Magnotta. Kadir Anlayisli who works in the after hours liqueur and tobacco shop with internet cafe, called a police man from outside saying he recognized the suspect person. Magnotta is wanted by Canadian authorities on first-degree murder and other charges. He is suspected of killing Jun Lin a 33-year-old Chinese university student he dated and mailing Lin's body parts to Canadian political parties. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber) / Markus Schreiber
A state appeals court ruled Tuesday that a person who is voluntarily nude in the presence of another still has privacy rights against being secretly videotaped, in a decision that bolsters Wisconsin's video voyeur law.
The ruling upholds the felony guilty plea of Mark Jahnke, who videotaped his girlfriend while she was naked and while they were having sex. He argued in his appeal that because the woman agreed to be naked around him, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The state Department of Justice argued that shared intimacy does not give a person the right to film another unknowingly.
Jahnke's attorney, Michael Herbert of Madison, argued that the court had found in a previous case that a reasonable expectation of privacy existed when a nude person reasonably believed he or she was "secluded from the presence of others."
Prosecutors argued the video voyeur law would make no sense under that interpretation. The appeals court agreed, saying the definition in the previous case was not intended to cover all circumstances.
Judge Charles Dykman, the dissenter in the 2-1 decision, said the 2001 law does not specifically prohibit what Jahnke did.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen praised the ruling.
"Wisconsin's citizens enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy not to be secretly videotaped while in the nude, and Wisconsin's criminal law has been correctly interpreted to protect that expectation," he said.
Herbert said he did not know whether the case would be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
In April 2007, Jahnke pleaded guilty to illegally making a nude recording. He was sentenced to three years' probation and six months in jail, which was put on hold pending his appeal.
He was a Waunakee High School chemistry teacher but negotiated a resignation after school officials voted to fire him.
Jahnke's ex-girlfriend said she became suspicious when she saw a flash of a red light from beneath a pile of clothes in her bedroom. She complained to Stevens Point police, who searched Jahnke's house and seized 33 audio tapes of the couple having sex and three DVDs. One showed the couple having sex, and two showed the woman nude in her home.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The ruling upholds the felony guilty plea of Mark Jahnke, who videotaped his girlfriend while she was naked and while they were having sex. He argued in his appeal that because the woman agreed to be naked around him, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The state Department of Justice argued that shared intimacy does not give a person the right to film another unknowingly.
Jahnke's attorney, Michael Herbert of Madison, argued that the court had found in a previous case that a reasonable expectation of privacy existed when a nude person reasonably believed he or she was "secluded from the presence of others."
Prosecutors argued the video voyeur law would make no sense under that interpretation. The appeals court agreed, saying the definition in the previous case was not intended to cover all circumstances.
Judge Charles Dykman, the dissenter in the 2-1 decision, said the 2001 law does not specifically prohibit what Jahnke did.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen praised the ruling.
"Wisconsin's citizens enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy not to be secretly videotaped while in the nude, and Wisconsin's criminal law has been correctly interpreted to protect that expectation," he said.
Herbert said he did not know whether the case would be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
In April 2007, Jahnke pleaded guilty to illegally making a nude recording. He was sentenced to three years' probation and six months in jail, which was put on hold pending his appeal.
He was a Waunakee High School chemistry teacher but negotiated a resignation after school officials voted to fire him.
Jahnke's ex-girlfriend said she became suspicious when she saw a flash of a red light from beneath a pile of clothes in her bedroom. She complained to Stevens Point police, who searched Jahnke's house and seized 33 audio tapes of the couple having sex and three DVDs. One showed the couple having sex, and two showed the woman nude in her home.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Children rescued from two elementary schools in Oklahoma 19 Photos
- Tornado's destructive path 17 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado recovery grinds on amid grim scenes
- Oklahoma tornado victim search efforts winding down
- Deadliest U.S. tornadoes 10 Photos
- More severe weather expected after monster tornado
- Up-close video of Moore, Okla., tornado Play Video
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
Posted by LordSunTzu at 12:57 AM : Dec 31, 2008
____________________________
eff LordSunTzu, and:
dont ever trust a creature that wastes away millions, and demand full control over the single survivor.
I''''m gonna guess you don''''t get much.
Posted by mdalerwill at 11:45 AM : Dec 31, 2008
+ report abuse
************
no i dont like women like that..trashy..
snoop dawg said it best.." do I love them ''hoes? HELL NO!"
that woman is a tramp and walking petri dish..
With regard to rights, the Constitution contains a series of prohibitions on government actions, not grants of rights to individuals.]
[Posted by SamRT at 12:54 PM : Dec 31, 2008]
i''ll ask again ... what/who is granting the rights? when did the assignment of the rights occur?
the constitution is intended to secure rights to individual citizens ... and protect against the tyrany of the government via the restriction of those rights.
the rights are implied via the reference to the governments inability to abridge them.
what/who is granting the rights? when did this occur?
Posted by bobnjersey at 11:07 AM : Dec 31, 2008
People should look into what the 9th Amendment says regarding ''The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage OTHERS retained by the people.''
This is a very open-ended amendment--in the sense that different judges have very different interpretations--many expressing the view that just because a specific right is not quoted in the Constitution does not mean that that right is negated.
Ergo, the right to privacy is not ''specifically'' mentioned in the Constitution, but that cannot be used as an argument that the right to privacy does not exist.
[Posted by Evian_Ycnan at 11:01 AM : Dec 31, 2008]
really? what''''s the distinction between ''''granting the right'''' and ''''merely protecting those that are specifically named''''?
what/who is granting the rights? when did this occur?
Posted by bobnjersey at 11:07 AM : Dec 31, 2008
====================
True that the Constitution does not grant rights. Look at the way the First Amendment is written, for example: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..."
With regard to rights, the Constitution contains a series of prohibitions on government actions, not grants of rights to individuals.
Trying posting your, you know, thoughts about this on a political thread instead of, you know, spamming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by brannigon at 09:13 AM : Dec 31, 2008
Uh, hate to mention this, but it was in private. Maybe you should actually read the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by comeon11 at 03:44 AM : Dec 31, 2008
That''s not what this situation was about, so let''s not send out engraved invitations for all the jilted men in the world to start making asinine comments about how all rape reports are false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by comeon11 at 03:32 AM : Dec 31, 2008
I don''t remember public nudity as one of the possible contributing causes of the fall of Rome. But seriously, there is nothing inherently dirty or wrong with the human body. People attach all sorts of personal issues to nudity. The sensible answer would be to address the issues, not make the human body taboo. I find it interesting that very shortly after the whole country freaked out about a woman''s breast accidentally being shown on tv during the Superbowl, a news station broadcast live the killing of a fugitive at the end of a police chase at a time of day when children could easily have been watching. Much smaller uproar. It''s okay to watch a real person die violently, but a naked breast - OMG!