Man charged with taking illegal photos of topless women

[KevinFromTexas]

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...812photos.html

PUBLIC SAFETY

Man charged with taking illegal photos of topless women
Houston man arrested after deputy spots him lurking at Lake Travis.

By Tony Plohetski, Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

A Houston man was arrested and charged with photographing two women who were swimming and sunbathing topless on Lake Travis without their permission.

Phu V. Nguyen, 56, was charged with improper photography or visual recording after a Travis County sheriff's park ranger spotted him Saturday near Hippie Hollow Park. He was hiding behind a tree at the base of a cove on the lake, according to an arrest affidavit filed Monday.

Nguyen could not be reached for comment Monday.

Nguyen "appeared to be fixated and overly interested in the two females," the affidavit said. The affidavit said that the ranger thought the photographs were taken "in a deviant manner."

According to the affidavit, Nguyen fled when one of the women saw him and yelled, "Oh, my God. You're kidding me."

After the ranger stopped him, Nguyen told the ranger that he had only a pair of binoculars, the affidavit said. Nguyen then agreed to let the ranger search his bag, where the ranger found the camera with photos of the women, according to the affidavit.

Under state law, "improper photography" is defined as taking a photograph of someone or visually recording them without the person's consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. If convicted, Nguyen could face up to two years in a state jail.

The state's indecent exposure law does not bar women from being topless in public.

James Hemphill, a First Amendment lawyer in Austin whose clients include the American-Statesman, said that under a broad interpretation of privacy laws, a person implicitly gives consent to be photographed by being in a public place.

"As a matter of constitutional law, given that a person is in public and given that a photographer is in a public place and given no extraordinary technology is used, the Constitution must require that photography be allowed and not punished," Hemphill said.

"The lines start to blur when a person is in a private place but is visible from a public place, or with the using of technology to capture an image not visible with the unaided eye," he said.

[Saddle Man]

Ridiculous.

[DruidCity]

Nguyen "appeared to be fixated and overly interested in the two females," the affidavit said.

Well, duh. If they're gonna show what they got, folks are gonna look ...

[Nickelplate]

Me so horny baby. Me love you long time!

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Nickelplate

Me so horny baby. Me love you long time!

• Video Link

[Saddle Man]

Anyone with a camera should be worried incidents like this. It doesn't matter what the subject is (topless women, buildings, large crowds, or whatever), you could be in the same situation as this guy.

[TXAlex]

Wow, this is not good.

[priller]

I would imagine that the state law could likely be found unconstitutional if it was challenged. Saying that photographing someone in public is illegal if the photo is used to "arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person" seems awfully imprecise, as there are a variety of things other than nudity that can do that, depending on the person. It will be interesting to see how this ends up.

[Texas Tuff]

This is crazy. I say if you strip in public it's fair game for somebody to snap a picture of it. People are, or could be, seeing you naked anyway so what's the big deal? As far as being sexually aroused that could also obviously apply to a person simply seeing a nude person without taking a pic of it. If I see a hot naked lady somewhere I'm sure going to be aroused, picture or no picture!!