Idaho Man Arrested For Taking Upskirt Pics At Walmart

Boise, Idaho police arrested a man for “video voyeurism” at Walmart. His offense was cruising the aisles and snapping shots under women’s skirts.

A police lieutenant describes the crime terminology to KTVB in Boise:

“It’s a felony. It’s a fairly new law on the books that was created to meet the needs of an ever-changing technology in society. So, we do use it quite a bit. It’s just one of those things that happen as times change. People take advantage of cell phones, to capture video that they should not be.”

The man was booked into jail after at least two women caught him in the act and reported him.

Man arrested, accused of taking pictures under women’s skirts [KTVB Idaho via Fark]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    Do I even want to know what someone is thinking when they decide this sort of thing is OK to do?

    • evnmorlo says:

      If much more revealing shots are normal at airports, a little up-skirt peeking seems quite innocent.

    • AngryK9 says:

      Especially at a Walmart….in Idaho….

      • jefeloco says:

        Don’t knock Idaho until you try it. I’m surprised this happened in the one on Overland, usually the criminal stuff happens in Garden City, Nampa or Caldwell.

    • knoxblox says:

      For the few who can’t seem to realize the distinction between what they see in porn and basic reality…I think porn purveyors need to make it clear to consumers that what they see on a website/in a magazine is not typical/acceptable behavior in public.

      Something like saying, “Look, people. These are ACTORS, and they are ACTING. You just can’t go around in life taking upskirt photos or imprisoning young women without breaking the law.”

      I’m not saying there is a direct correlation, but there are a few instances…

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        Aren’t they legally required to have that kind of disclaimer? That if what’s going on in the video would be illegal if it wasn’t fake they have to point out it was fake?

        At the very least I’d figure it would be a CYA thing.

        • knoxblox says:

          Well, I guess I’m directing my attention more towards the internet. The kinds of rogue websites that some store managers and other buffoons watch and then assume that it’s okay to hide videotaping equipment in the ceilings of bathrooms and changing rooms…or take upskirt photos…or wank off in public…among many other unacceptable behaviors.

          For humor and argument’s sake, it should be noted that I say “watch and then assume”, because I don’t think these kinds of people are really thinking things through beforehand when they do these kinds of things in public.
          Perhaps it would help if a few pornography advocates like say, Larry Flynt, would offer a few helpful tips on what separates constitutional freedoms from stupid and illegal behavior. You know…PSA’s for porn.

          • knoxblox says:

            …and in today’s news…

            A man was arrested in my state today for hiding video cameras throughout his house, including the bathroom that his stepdaughter typically used. She reported it to the police after finding one of the bathroom cameras.

            Such. Stupid (and bad). People.

  2. SanDiegoDude says:

    You know, there is a website that would have worked for him, without all the jail and arresting and stuff.

    http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

  3. Holybalheadedchrist! says:

    I can’t believe he wasn’t distracted by the low, low prices.

    • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

      I spit coffee on my monitor, laughing… well played, sir. +1

    • dragonfire81 says:

      WOW! That’s a low price!

      • Platypi {Redacted} says:

        -1

        Sorry, I have to deduct a point for the cross-referencing. He would have been distracted by the screaming moron had he been doing it at Staples, I think Walmart would require the stupid bouncing face or shit falling from the price signs.

  4. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    You know, while I could kind of understand why someone could be attracted to this, I also shudder to think about some of the things this guy would also catch pictures of that could never been unseen.

    • Toffeemama is looking for a few good Otters says:

      Yet another reason to convince my husband to buy and wear a kilt.

    • deadandy says:

      Chance of catching people without underwear at Walmart: 42%. Chance you want to see what’s revealed: 2%

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      Nice – you can “kind of understand” why someone would violate another persons privacy.

      • DanRydell says:

        Understanding why someone would be attracted to it is not even close to condoning it.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        No, I said “attracted to this” meaning “up skirt” photos, not “I kind of condone this”.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Sorry SteveDave, but I still don’t get it.

          Liking “up skirt” photos where the woman willingly lets the photo be taken is fine. If that’s what you’re saying you can kind of understand then I see nothing wrong with your sentiment.

          But in general “up skirt” photos are taken of women who do not know about, and would not agree to, the photos being taken. If the women do not know, then it is a gross violation of their privacy to take the pictures.

          There is absolutely no limit to the amount nor type of pictures of naked or nearly naked, willingly photographed or filmed, women (and men) to be found on the internet, freely available to all who wish to look.

          The people who take the ‘up skirt’ photos, and those who view them, don’t want to look at the pictures of women who were willing to be photographed while undressed. These people get off on knowing that the picture was taken sneakily of someone who was unwilling.

          There is no way a decent person can ‘understand’ that behavior, because it’s not about the natural inclination to view sexually suggestive, or sexually explicit pictures, but rather it’s about violating someone else.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

            Well, you keep finding whatever hidden meanings you think I’m sending. If me saying I don’t condone it doesn’t make you believe that I don’t condone it….

            • jefeloco says:

              Too many people confuse empathy with sympathy. You’re just saying that you can understand that someone might like this sort of thing (empathy), after all, as long as people wear clothes there will always be people with a desire to see what’s underneath. It is expressed widely enough by our society to be considered human nature.

              Your words do not say that you understand what they’re doing because you see the excitement/reward/feel of it (sympathy).

              I understand that people like mayonnaise because they like moist, sweet goo on their food(empathy) but cannot see why people eat that icky crap because it is foul and sinisterly disgusting (lack of sympathy).

              • Rena says:

                I’m glad someone got it. Big difference between “I can see why he’d want to do this” and “I agree with him and think this was a good thing to do”.

          • quijote says:

            While most people would probably agree that this constitutes an invasion of privacy, there is probably no wide agreement about how severe such an infraction is. For example, I think most guys would not be that upset if someone tried to sneak a peek of them naked. They might call the police, and they’d certainly be creeped out, but they may not feel grossly violated. For others it might be quite traumatizing. My point is only that you’re wrong to jump on someone for not immediately seeing this type of invasion of privacy as being as serious as you do.

        • zandar says:

          Ugh SteveDave, I thought you meant the people themselves, not upskirts as a genre.

          Part of the whole upskirts appeal is the fact it’s unsolicited.

          Major turnoff for me personally.

      • macruadhi says:

        It’s in public, no expectation of privacy.

        • Rectilinear Propagation says:

          It is reasonable to expect people not to try to record what’s under your clothing, even in public.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Do you think before you post?

          Whether in public or in private, every person has the right to privacy for the parts of their body that are covered with clothes. Another person has no more right to view under someones clothes by being sneaky than by using force. The law says so, and common sense tells us so.

      • DH405 says:

        Wow, you’re really on the ball on the judgmental posts today.

  5. myCatCracksMeUp says:

    I wish the article had more information. I can’t figure out how a person can walk around and take pictures under someones skirt, unless the skirt wearer is extremely tall, and wearing a very short skirt, and the picture taker has long arms. Otherwise it seems there would be no way to get the camera lower than the bottom of the skirt. Now if he were kneeling, or something like that, I can see how it’d be easy to do, but the article doesn’t mention anything like that.

    And – I hope he gets the max penalty for what he did; it’s a very scummy thing to do.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      They crouch, kneel, etc. They’ll pretend to be tying their shoe or looking for something on a low shelf so that they can get their camera below the edge of the woman’s skirt.

      • DariusC says:

        Actually many of them have cameras on the top of their shoes and the just put their shoe below their skirt and take a picture… Been around for quite a while. Nobody is going to bust out a camera in public for that reason… lol… If this guy did, he is not sly at all.

    • rpm773 says:

      It’s simple. You throw some change at the lady’s feet, acting like you dropped it. Then you take slyly out your 1987-era camcorder and point it upward while bending over to pick up the change.

      And, as I found out the hard way, it’s wise to wear a football helmet with a facemask while doing this. Because she’s going to try to kick you in the teeth.

    • evnmorlo says:
    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Do you wish the article had more information so you could violate another persons privacy?

      Sorry, just had to do that, because I know you don’t. In the early days, this was accomplished with a mirror on the shoe, or in the case of old men, their canes. When cameras came out, people resorted to under bleachers and boardwalks to hide the camera. As cameras got smaller and smaller, they soon replaced the mirror, and can even work wirelessly now from the tip of the shoe, and can also record video instead of still frames..

    • jefeloco says:

      I posted a link to the Mistakesman in a separate post below that has more information.

  6. momtimestwo says:

    Gross….. upskirting at Walmart? I guess there wasn’t an upscale store around…

  7. aweirdguy says:

    Why Walmart of all places? Do the employees at Victoria’s Secret watch for this type of thing so carefully you have to go dumpster diving for Wally World customers?

  8. Anonymously says:

    Why are all of the fun things illegal now?

    • Anonymously says:

      Seriously though, blowing air up skirts used to be commonplace at amusement parks.

    • Minj says:

      In most areas it isn’t illegal. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place except in certain special areas such as dressing rooms and restrooms.

      • Griking says:

        I kind of agree. Don’t wear it in public if you don’t want people to look at or photograph it. That being said, I think a person crosses a line when they put a camera on the ground to look up a woman’s skirt or hide one in a changing room.

  9. sufreak says:

    Surprised no one said it. The obligatory “Pics or didn’t happen”

  10. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Walmart?
    Hasn’t he seen the pix at peopleofwalmart.com?
    I shudder.

  11. Bkhuna says:

    The perp needs to be evaluated at a mental hospital. Have you SEEN the kinds of women that shop at Walmart?

  12. H3ion says:

    Well, it’s Idaho and the sheep were probably busy. This guy is pretty sick but does this really rise to the level of a felony?

  13. vitajex says:

    /waves hand solemnly.

    These are not the drawers you’re looking for…

  14. brianary says:

    Not my thing, but this seems like quite an overreaction.

    I mean, I realize that legally and morally, women own all of the photons that carom off of their bodies, and should be able to sue or humiliate anyone using them without explicit consent, and that skirts are part of the required lady uniform, despite the risk associated with seeing a tiny bookmark-sized sliver of fabric usually visible only during any figure skating routine, but maybe we could just fine this guy?

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      If they didn’t catch him, they’d be none the wiser and no harm done. I don’t understand how it’s a felony. He needs help but I’m not sure we have any effective cure for something like that, which wouldn’t kill the patient.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        Harm is done every time someone’s right to the privacy of their own body is violated. It’s no less wrong to violate someone through sneakiness than through force.

        Would you still agree about “just a fine” if he’d lifted the women’s dresses so he could view and photograph?

        Would you be ok with “just a fine” if your mother, sisters, aunts, nieces, or daughters were violated in this way?

        It’s right that this is a felony and that he should go to prison.

        • vitajex says:

          Continuing this line of thought, it’s alright to rape women ‘as long as they don’t remember it’.

          That just doesn’t sound right, huh?

          • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

            LOL! Wow, explain to me how much pain and anguish someone feels when a tree falls in a forest? If they have no idea someone looked at their undies, how can they be hurt? Given: There is no way to ensure the victim will not discover the perp in the act.

            Yes, lets continue this line of thought:
            1 – Perv looks up a skirt, no contact whatsoever, and the victim is none-the-wiser, but is seen on security-cam and goes to prison for a few years as a felony.
            2 – Perp lifts up the dress and gets caught and fined.
            3 – Perp rapes women but hypnotizes them not to remember and has no punishment.
            – so reducing the penalty and increasing the crime we get:
            4 – Perp rapes and kills a bus load of orphans and nuns and gets a congressional medal.

            Why not go the Byzantine route and make everything a felony. Sneaking a peek, j-walking, rape, murder, terrorism, photographing the cop that gives you a speeding ticket, everything.

            • AlphaLackey says:

              I never understood how women’s groups get up in arms when a professional athlete or an actor uses the word “rape” colloqually (as in “man, we got raped out there”), yet here we have presumably like-minded people comparing an illicit up-skirt photograph with rape, and unlike the metaphorical tone used by the athlete or actor, they’re doing it with all seriousness. It’s bad enough when it’s used to try and equate statutory rape (where both parties thought they were consenting in good faith), but an illicit upskirt photo? Not even close.

              My other question is, where do you draw the line? If someone with a foot fetish records their secretary dangling her shoes off the end of her toes, or someone with a hair fetish records a woman walking down the street tousling her hair, could anyone with anything resembling an objective mindset claim the woman in question was violated on a felony level? Yet the difference between these examples and the upskirt shots surely must be one of degree, not of kind, and the jump from misdemeanor to felony is NOT a difference of degree.

          • brianary says:

            Remind me, is it sociopathy when someone doesn’t know the difference between looking and touching, passive and active, or is it just a simple strawman attack?

        • brianary says:

          Do you go through the T-ray scanners at airports?

  15. UnicornMaster says:

    A Wal-Mart of all places? Is that the best Boise has to offer?

  16. jefeloco says:

    Ugh, I can’t believe this happened at the Overland Walmart. At least Phil linked to the KTVB site instead of the Mistakesman, which amazingly had the more complete article,

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/09/27/1357253/police-boise-man-charged-with.html

    Enjoy!

  17. NashuaConsumerist says:

    Am I the only one smitten with the female storm trooper?

  18. NumberSix says:

    Can someone tell me what the deal is with the Storm Trooper helmet pics? They’re pretty funny, but I was just wondering how that got started.

  19. magnetic says:

    Panties of Wal-Mart

  20. lostalaska says:

    I’m glad they caught the guy, peopleofwalmart.com is freaky enough without having some entrepreneur start upskirtsofwalmart.com I already have to wash my eyes with bleach after hitting peopleofwalmart.com.

  21. graytotoro says:

    Idaho? Looks like it’s HE who’s da ho.

  22. Erik Hughes says:

    Ewwwwwwwww.

  23. Streakist says:

    I’m pretty sure this happens everyday at some store somewhere in the U.S. What makes this story worth putting on the consumerist.com?