Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/06/1995 02:07 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HJUD - 03/06/95                                                               
 HB 188 - INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHY                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS made a motion to accept the committee             
 substitute, dated 3/1/95 Version F, as the working document.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, bill sponsor, explained Version F.               
 He said on page 2, lines 7, 8 and 9, subsection (d) was rewritten,            
 which makes it more clear.  On line 12, the word "magnetic" is                
 inserted after the word "electronic" and on lines 14, 15, 16 and              
 17, language was offered by the Chair that actually makes that                
 section read better and be more clear.  He said the changes made in           
 the committee substitute were all acceptable to him, and he was in            
 support of the new draft.                                                     
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the wording in Section (d) on page 2, was what           
 they had discussed regarding setting policy calls for businesses.             
 The trade off was that most businesses would not have the ability             
 to employ people of different sexes for security system viewing.              
 He said the amendment did mean that businesses could not use these            
 tapes for any other purpose than for crime prevention and                     
 prosecution.  One consideration is the issue of the first amendment           
 constitutionality of the viewing.  The wording we have used,                  
 restricting someone's ability to view, meets every constitutional             
 challenge he had ever heard of in this area.                                  
 Number 120                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE hoped this would not give the green light to            
 a clothing store owner to have hidden surveillance cameras in the             
 women's dressing rooms, being viewed by men.                                  
 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that the legislature did not have the               
 right to tell the businesses under what policies they should                  
 operate; but any business that allowed different sex monitoring of            
 this nature would be in trouble anyway.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE'S concern is that this could be used as an              
 affirmative defense, giving some guy the ability to hide                      
 surveillance cameras in all of the dressing rooms of a clothing               
 store, because of the concern about shoplifting.  He wanted                   
 statutes to be clear that was not allowed.                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the language continued on to say,              
 "and any viewing or use of pictures is done only in the interest of           
 crime prevention, and prosecution."                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said crime prevention could include                     
 prevention of shoplifting.                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said viewing would be allowed to take place,            
 as long as the owner said he was doing it for crime prevention.               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted it would be an element to be determined by              
 the jury, whether he was or was not doing it for the purpose of               
 crime prevention.  He suspected if the employee's superiors did not           
 know about it, and had not told him to set up surveillance cameras,           
 he would be found guilty, and the affirmative defense would be                
 Number 185                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he was not aware that this was an               
 ongoing common problem, and did not feel it would happen often,               
 since the risk of public condemnation against a business might be             
 Number 220                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY mentioned there are other ways to               
 stop shoplifting in dressing rooms; such as having a dressing room            
 attendant limit the number of items allowed in a room at one time.            
 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE felt that if surveillance cameras were to be            
 placed in a dressing room, or locker room, it should be required              
 that a notice be posted; so people who are in situations where they           
 expect privacy, have privacy; or else are forewarned that they are            
 being viewed.  Otherwise this would be an invasion of privacy.                
 There are legitimate situations for surveillance systems, so the              
 affirmative defense serves a purpose.  He feared they might be                
 allowing something that they are actually trying to prevent.  When            
 a person has the right to expect a certain degree of privacy, they            
 should have that privacy.                                                     
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the only thing they were criminalizing here is           
 the nonsecurity use of viewing or of photographing the people in              
 the conditions we have described.                                             
 Number 375                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY did not believe a store would set up cameras            
 in dressing rooms.  There would be a riot.                                    
 Number 440                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN believed that if a person was to             
 be viewed, it needed to be made known that they will be filmed; so            
 they can make that decision whether or not they want to subject               
 themselves to that circumstance.  It should be posted on the wall             
 in those instances.                                                           
 Number 520                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY felt that in the instances where video                
 surveillance is abused, there would be no judge or jury that could            
 be convinced that those circumstances were legitimate.                        
 CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the discussion on HB 188.  He said they             
 would hold it over and come up with language they could agree on.             

Document Name Date/Time Subjects