Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1995 02:07 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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 overcome. 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 self-policing. 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.