rrt911

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 8:15 p.m.

WAIT JUST A MINUTE GUYS! Looking back on these comments, I notice several "men" making light of this. What if it was your teenage daughter? Since when don't we have the right to privacy under our clothing when out in public? You've got to be kidding me. Really? Think of every women you love and tell me this shouldn't be punishable through legal channels. If even half of the men realized how every woman, in the back of her mind, must think about how to protect themselves on a DAILY basis. We are not victims--but we must think like one sometimes for our own protection. I bet they can't grasp the concept of being overtaken, out muscled by almost any male at any time, day or night. Men can be very predatory and its not that hard for them to select any one of us doing every day activites. That means our purses, our cars and our vaginas. Who's to say this guy doesn't follow your daughter home from the grocery store in the middle of the day? Now think about that one. You guys owe a lot of women a big apology. Maybe you should talk to a female in your life and ask her about what I've just written. I dare you.

krc

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.

Awakened: Even if they do show up on the internet, they will be anonymous as I assume these women weren't wearing undies with personal info on them! I still have a hard time with this. How did they not know this was happening? Surely there was some kind of movement. I'll tell you, if this happened to me, I'd whip around and clock the dude. Then I'd get his cell and crush it beneath my size nines. Then maybe make him eat it. Oops, sorry. Got carried away there for a second.

Awakened

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:21 a.m.

I guess my concern is that if this guy feels compelled to take these actions in public he might be even bolder if he encountered some women in private. As for the arguement that these women weren't victimized....What if these pictures show up on the internet?

free form

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.

As a woman, I find it a bit distressing that so many here are making light of the incident. All jokes aside, this is a CRIME and yes the victims (no condescending quote marks) have indeed been victimized. To say that I do not have an expectation of privacy UNDER MY SKIRT is ridiculous. Just because the women were not physically harmed and did not know the photos were taken does not mean they haven't been violated. To compare this with "undressing someone" with your eyes is insulting. I feel like some of you are a small step away from the "good old boys" adage that these women were "asking for it."

Trouble

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 6:41 p.m.

Too much Talk. Blanket Party, Best Justice!

The Picker

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 6:16 p.m.

So when they find the "victims" will they be matching up the photos to the subjects? Maybe a reverse line-up? How will this play out?

Lokalisierung

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

Oh right....I had asked aa.com reporters about the incident you were talking about and they erased my post.

treetowncartel

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 3:27 p.m.

@Loka, I'm clueless as to what case you are talking about but you are welcome anyhow.

Lokalisierung

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 12:38 p.m.

"He was caught and several jurisdictions were filing charges against him when he was found dead in a hotel room from a self inflicted gunshot." Thanks TreeTown...that's the case I was looking for.

cinnabar7071

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.

The days of patent leather are gone.

krc

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 9:32 a.m.

I don't get how the women didn't know they were being photographed? And with the fashion styles of today, (the really tight, short skirts)how did he get close enough to see up them? Weird.

treetowncartel

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.

I think the police are going to have to go the route they did with the guy from the Art Fair. The headline to the article says he was seen, so he has a pretty good argument against it being done in secret. Also, wouldn't the feds have to pursue him on that law and not the local county prosecutors?

Ignatz

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.

So, the "victims" don't even know they're "victimized". They were not hurt, stolen from or even knowingly embarrassed. Why are our supposedly scarce police resources being spent on looking for this guy. If the women made the complaints, then fine. What's next, someone being charged for undressing someone with his eyes?

Mike

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.

There was another case of a man taking pictures up girl's skirts a few years ago at the art fair and at shopping malls in metro Detroit. He was caught and several jurisdictions were filing charges against him when he was found dead in a hotel room from a self inflicted gunshot. He claimed in his suicide note that he never hurt anyone since none of the girls knew what he was doing. BTW there are websites where people can post pictures like the ones these guys were taking.

Rhe Buttle

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.

I'm not saying I think this person was right but you have to admit he was pretty tenacious... I've been to Meijers (and I've even been to Walmart) and I can't remember seeing a woman in a skirt, ever. Now that I think about it, I can't remember seeing a woman in a skirt THIS DECADE!

TinyArtist

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 7 a.m.

This story is of so little interest to me that I refuse to even log in to make a comment.

Matt Cooper

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 12:14 a.m.

To all the idiots: The women he took the pictures of have a total right to privacy and this man violated that right to privacy. He had no right to take photo's in an "upskirt" fashion without their permission and thus violated the law. I hope they sentence this creep to prison as well as put him on the sex registry for life. To those that make fun of this case: How would you feel if it were your wife, or your daughter that this Cretin was taking pictures of without their permission? Would you still find it so gawdamned funny if it were your 13 or 14 year old daughter? Would you still question the meaning of "Nude", or "Partially nude"? Would you still really need those kinds of definitions? I think not! To Atticus: Apparantly you don't know much about the laws, because if you did, you'd know that you do have a right to the privacy of your person. And no, simply existing in a public place does not imply consent in ANY criminal activity. To Woman In Ypsilanti: I am amazed that as a (presumably) woman you are not absolutely outraged over this. To say that this is equivalant to women going to the pool in a bikini is simply insane. Those women made a choice to walk around in revealing clothing. The women at Meijer's did not make such a choice. They were there to go shopping, not to have their panties exposed to the world.

cymk

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 11:35 p.m.

Note to self: stop reading the comment sections.

The Picker

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 9:08 p.m.

Thanks Bob, but I think nudity can only be an either, or, situation. Like being partially pregnant. It should read partially clothed. But now we need another definition of these so called "Private areas" Some people are less private than others. And how many are there? Does a Micro Mini disqualify any? Please Advise!

RoboLogic

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 7:55 p.m.

OK Mr hussflier: Some women do not wear anything under their dresses. They still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A normal, reasonable person is not expected to take photographs at a low angle to capture the shot (private) they are seeking. This is clearly a coordinated creep, who has mastered his creepiness. I believe it is a crime. If these pervs wanna do this kind of stuff, go to a strip club or something, but they cant, as they get off of on the supposed stealth of their actions. Too many perverts...not enough prison cells. What ever happened to chasing women the regular way?

Basic Bob

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 7:20 p.m.

@Picker, Subject wearing granny panties... not nudity, just awkward! Thong underwear... partial nudity Commando... full nudity Mom always told us to wear our good underwear in public. You never know who's going to see it.

Interested Person

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 7:06 p.m.

@ Amalie Nash: Is there an article on the Dexter person who was arrested for the same thing? It sounds like a story about someone I used to know, and I was never able to find an article about the arrest after hearing a rumor. I have always wanted to verify the rumor's truth. Please post a link if there is one available.

whodat

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 6:26 p.m.

I wonder if he used the new Apple iPeek.

The Picker

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 6:18 p.m.

What is partial nudity? Is that like only wearing a watch out in public? I guess it depends on how you wear it? Please advise!

Atticus F.

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.

Not condoning what happened, but anytime you walk into public, you are subject to having your picture taken. There is no expectation to privacy in a public place. Same as if I were to bend over at miejer and someone were to take a picture of my underware, or whatever else was hanging out of the back of my pants.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 3:31 p.m.

I believe there's significant legal precedent as to the "reasonable expectation of privacy." In this case, a woman can consider her choice of underwear (or no underwear) to be a private choice. At a public swimming pool, she would have no such expectation. So it's a violation of her privacy to stick a camera under her skirt. MCL 750.539j and MCL 750.539d prohibit voyeurism where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. Amalie's recollection is partially incorrect - it's not the degree of nudity, it's the specific recording or "secret" viewing of genitalia, breasts, buttocks or undergarments that's prohibited. Strangely enough, this law can cause significant conflict with divorce law. Often, the only way to prove an affair is to photograph someone in a compromising position (emails and other documents are rarely admissible in court). This law makes that difficult. But the privacy concerns outlined in this Meijer case are more important.

treetowncartel

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.

Thanks Amalie, but I agree hussflier, and you don't have as much expectation of privacy in the dairy isle as you do the fitting rooms or bathroom stall. Infact, some of the stuff you see on the people of walmart site would probably be punishable if that were the case. They will alsohave a hard time with the secretly aspect. Still, I suppose at least knowing the guy's name and getting him in a database is worth the questioning. Wasn't someone doing this at the Art Fair a few years back?

hussflier

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 3 p.m.

Well Amalie I don't believe the women were nude or partially nude so that will never stick!

Salinemary

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 2:03 p.m.

What a creep!

Woman in Ypsilanti

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 1:53 p.m.

I don't get it. All the guy was likely to get pictures of are women's underpants. You can see as much at any public pool where women are walking around in swimsuits. People are so weird.

treetowncartel

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 1:51 p.m.

On a second read, this iis somehwat confusing rendition of events. First it says he was questioned and detained. It then goes on to say he left before officers arrived and they have a real good description of him and his plate number. Is this today's hidden riddle?

treetowncartel

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 1:41 p.m.

So, what is the actual crime this guy would be charged with?

Carl Duncan

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.

I feel sorry for the detective having to track down leads on this case. I suppose they'd have to go through the store tapes to ID alleged victims. Then when the alleged victims are found, the detective would have to explain what the alleged problem is. Not every one can be a cop--inspector Clouseau any one.