Man Acquitted in Secret Videotaping Case

On the same day that prosecutors charged an Irvine man with disorderly conduct for allegedly videotaping up a woman’s skirt, a judge ruled in a similar case that the law doesn’t apply.

The surreptitious videotaping of women in public places has became an increasing phenomenon, prosecutors said, and finding an applicable law is a problem.

John Lopez, 42, of Anaheim had been charged with disorderly conduct after his arrest at MainPlace/Santa Ana in December.

The facts of the case are not in dispute, said his attorney, Dennis O’Connell. Lopez put a video camera in a shopping bag, then placed it on the ground to tape under a woman’s skirt, he said.

O’Donnell argued that the law’s intent is to bar filming or peeping in rooms where there is an expectation of privacy but that it does not extend to taping under a person’s clothes.

Section 647k of the Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor to look “through a hole or opening, into, or to otherwise view(s) . . . the interior of a bathroom, changing room . . . or any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

On Tuesday, Santa Ana Municipal Judge Steve Perk agreed with O’Donnell and acquitted Lopez.

Prosecutors acknowledged that they had tried “a novel theory” and felt it was “worth the argument,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Kathy Harper said.

On the same day, prosecutors used the same law, to charge David Wayne Lyman, 34, a software company employee, with using a hand-held camera hidden in a carrying case to film under women’s skirts at Fashion Island in Newport Beach. The last woman screamed, and her husband held Lyman until police arrived, prosecutors said.

At the Justice Center in Newport Beach, where Lyman will be prosecuted, Deputy Dist. Atty. Jack Sullens said prosecutors currently plan to go ahead with that case but “will keep an open mind.”

“If you look at the intent though, clearly a woman has a right of privacy for what’s under her skirt,” he said.

If a judge dismisses the case, he said, it may tell the Legislature that a new law is needed. On the other hand, a conviction could mean a higher court will get to settle the issue, he said.