It's illegal for man to spy on estranged wife in bathroom

03/09/2010 04:20:15 PM CST

Beware, guys: That wedding ring does not give you the OK to secretly videotape your wife disrobing in the bathroom.

The state Court of Appeals has ruled that a spouse has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when alone in her home bathroom.

"A spouse does not lose all claims to privacy through previously sharing some intimate information, activity, or viewing with the other spouse," Judge Doris Ohlsen Huspeni wrote for a three-judge panel that included judges Terri J. Stoneburner and Matthew E. Johnson.

"Even in marriage, consent can be bounded," the ruling said.

In a published decision issued today, the court affirmed the Mille Lacs County District Court conviction of Richard Allen Perez of four counts of gross misdemeanor interference with privacy.

Perez, 39, admitted that in 2006 he created a hole through an adjoining closet to videotape his wife at their Princeton home. They were getting divorced. He also told police he was on meth at the time.

"We weren't having sex anymore, and I did that for me, nobody else," he said. But he argued that his wife did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their shared home bathroom because they were married.

The woman found four video clips on the home computer featuring her getting into the bathtub. She also found several other clips taken by Perez in public places attempting to film under women's skirts and shorts, according to the ruling. Perez was not charged in connection with those videos.
A judge convicted him in March 2008 and sentenced him to a year in jail. That sentence was stayed pending his appeal.

His attorney, Craig Cascarano of Minneapolis, said today that they were "extremely disappointed" in the appellate court's decision.

"The intent (of the law) was to prevent some peeping Tom from looking at someone in a window or something like that," Cascarano said. "Well, if you've seen your wife naked on a number of occasions, how in the world does that apply to you?"

He said he would petition for review of the case by the state Supreme Court.

State law says that it's a gross misdemeanor when someone "surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a ... place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts" and "does so with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant."

Assistant Mille Lacs County Attorney Mark Herzing, who argued that the appeals court should uphold the conviction, said its decision didn't come as a surprise.

"I really don't know what else the court could have done to respect folks who are in marriages," he said. What the defendant wanted, he said, was like "a nudity easement," as if his wife were property and he had permission to encroach.

St. Paul attorney Kevin DeVore, who was not involved in the Perez case but has worked on privacy cases, said he believed the appeals court applied the law correctly. But he added that most spouses needn't worry about being charged.

"It's going to be rare that police pursue a claim, unless there are additional circumstances," he said.

From: http://www.twincities.com/ci_14641684?nclick_check=1