May 30th, 2013

Oklahoma Newspaper Reporter Arrested for Upskirting Teenage Girls with his Camera 13

By Carlos Miller

Zeke-campfield

 

A reporter for an Oklahoma newspaper was arrested Sunday after numerous high school girls accused him of taking photographs up their skirts during a graduation ceremony.

While this is an act that is illegal in many states, as it should be, it is apparently legal in Oklahoma after a 2008 court ruled it was legal as long as the women did not have an expectation of privacy.

Nevertheless, Nathaniel “Zeke” Campfield was charged with assault and battery after he allegedly bumped into several female students while snapping photos up their skirts.

When one of the students confronted him, he claimed innocence, showing her a picture of a tornado damage in the area that he had taken.

Yet when he was confronted by police, his camera contained no photos or memory card. In fact, he told officers that he had forgotten the memory card at home.

The Oklahoman, the newspaper Campfield works for, has not written about his arrest as of this writing.

Read the police reports here.

The 2008 court case involved a 34-year-old man named Riccardo Ferrante who followed a 16-year-old girl into a department store and pointed his camera up her skirt.

He was arrested under the state’s “peeping tom” statue, which made it a felony, but only in incidents where the women had an expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, locker room or her home.

Because he recorded up the girl’s skirt in a Target, it was ruled that she did not have an expectation of privacy.

That prompted Oklahoma legislator Pam Peterson to introduce a bill that would make it a felony to record up woman’s skirts, even if they happen to be in public.

While the introduction of the bill received a fair share of media attention, I couldn’t find anything about the outcome of that bill, so maybe you can guys can help me out.

A similar ruling came out of Washington in 2002, although that may have also changed since then.

It’s disgusting, the state Supreme Court opined.

It’s reprehensible, the court added for good measure.

But it is not a crime to secretly take pictures up women’s skirts in public places, according to the high-court opinion handed down yesterday.

The opinion came in response to appeals by two men who challenged the state’s voyeurism law.

The men were caught in 1999 and 2000 crouching where they shouldn’t — one at a Union Gap mall in the Yakima Valley and the other at The Bite of Seattle at Seattle Center.

One planned to sell his photos to an Internet site that specializes in such shots. The other kept the videotapes for his private viewing but has since gone into treatment.

“Although (their) actions are reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit upskirt photography in a public place,” Justice Bobbe Bridge, one of four women on the state Supreme Court, wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The 2004 federal Video Voyeurism Act goes a little further in defining an expectation of privacy as the “private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place,” so I would imagine the 16-year-old girl mentioned above could have filed civil suit against Ferrante.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • ElDouchee

    So I guess you’re right. Photography is not a crime.

  • Sanborn32

    It said he was a reporter for the Oklahoman…not a photographer. The pervy stuff he does on his own time.

  • Mark Olish

    Please…..I think she has expectation of privacy up her skirt . It’s not like like they were running around in in their underwear or a bikini . Leave it to a bunch of lawyers to fubar common sense.

    • Proud GrandPa

      “I think she has expectation of privacy up her skirt .”
      .
      My thought exactly, Mark. Even under the old law, this is illegal. One judge can be wrong. Another judge will interpret the law correctly.

      • MongoLikesCandy

        I think thats why they call them “your privates”

        • Proud GrandPa

          Actually that is literally correct. That is the derivation of that use of the word ‘private’. One could craft a sound legal brief (pun intentional) to the effect that word privacy had this meaning at the time the law was passed. A court must consider the original intent of lawmakers in applying a law.

          .
          You are correct. You know you etiology.

          • MongoLikesCandy

            Totally had to look up “etiology” though.

  • http://421a.douglasavenue.com Erin Winking

    It actually is illegal in Oklahoma.

    The legal code is a bitch to search through, so anyone can be forgiven for not finding it. It’s in RTF format for Christ’s sake.

    §21-1171. (the Peeping Tom Statute)

    C. Every person
    who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine
    manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious
    purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or
    look upon any person and capture an image of a private area of a
    person without the knowledge and consent of such person and knowingly
    does so under circumstances in which a reasonable person would
    believe that the private area of the person would not be visible to
    the public, regardless of whether the person is in a public or
    private place shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for
    a term of not more than one (1) year, or by a fine not exceeding Five
    Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

    • Name

      This would technically make a photo of a nip slip illegal.

      • http://421a.douglasavenue.com Erin Winking

        “…under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the private area of the person would not be visible to the public,”

        Your boobs popping out of your shirt likely would not apply here. I am sure it’s modeled under most of the other ‘upskirt’ laws in the country. Besides, what laws technically say and how they are applies are quite often two different things.

  • Phred

    “Yet when he was confronted by police, his camera contained no photos or memory card.”

    So what hard evidence do the cops have? Without actual images or a memory card, it’s the girls’ word against his.

    • kylejack

      So what? That’s a jury’s job, to weigh eyewitness testimony and decide how credible they find it. Besides, he’s charged with assault and battery, not a photography crime.

  • Tijuana Joe

    The weirdest “perv” prosecution I have seen the date was the photographer
    who was found guilty of making child porn at UC Davis for taking pictures of
    CLOTHED cheerleaders from the audience. One response says he pled
    out on invasion of privacy, still bullshit.

    http://forums.popphoto.com/archive/index.php/t-579735.html

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.