ATTORNEY SAYS HE'LL CHALLENGE LEGALITY OF VOYEURISM LAW.(News)

From: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, WA) | Date: November 25, 1999

A man who secretly snapped photographs under the skirts of two women at a shopping mall and planned to sell the pictures to an Internet pornography site has been convicted of voyeurism. The conviction may be the first in the state under the law, which was enacted last year, and the defense attorney in the case said he plans to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on appeal.

Sean Tyler Glas, 24, wept Tuesday when Yakima County Superior Court Judge James Gavin announced his verdict. Glas will remain free on a $2,500 bail until his sentencing Dec. 3. The felony carries a penalty of up to 12 years in prison.

Blaine Connaughton, Glas' lawyer, said he will appeal and challenge the constitutionality of the law.

Glas was arrested April 27 by Union Gap police for taking photographs of women's thighs and buttocks at the Valley Mall. Glas denied taking the photographs when he was arrested the next day. However, when he was told a department store video camera caught him in the act, he confessed. Police Officer Gregory Cobb testified that Glas intended to sell the photographs to a pornographic Internet organization that focuses on fetishes. In court, Connaughton challenged the constitutionality of the voyeurism law as too broad and vague on the definition of a reasonable expectation of privacy. He said the two women were working in a public place with heavy surveillance. Since they were not in a dressing room or a bathroom, he said, the women did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under those circumstances.

Gavin, who said he wasn't aware of any other court cases involving the voyeurism law, found the statute constitutional. The judge said the right to privacy includes the right to be left alone. He said when all elements of the statute are read, the law is neither too vague nor too broad to a reasonable person. The voyeurism statute includes four elements: A person must have been viewed, filmed or photographed secretly; the act was for sexual gratification; the person did not know he or she was viewed, filmed or photographed; and the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Gavin said all elements of the statute were present in the case.

Both women testified the photographs were taken without their permission. ``Putting a camera under a woman's skirt and photographing her is certainly hostile intrusion,'' Gavin said.