Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Upskirting ruling: Gross but legal

By Danny Cevallos, CNN Legal Analyst
May 28, 2014 -- Updated 2057 GMT (0457 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Danny Cevallos: People appalled by Mass. "upskirt" ruling, but justices enforcing law as written
  • He says victim wasn't partially nude, was in non-private place; law lets photog take picture
  • He says opinion raises privacy and moral issues unique to female clothing, mainly skirts
  • Cevallos: Don't be angry with court; be angry with legislators who enacted law

Editor's note: Danny Cevallos, a CNN legal analyst, is a criminal defense attorney practicing in Philadelphia, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

(CNN) -- On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued an opinion in the matter of Commonwealth v. Michael Robertson, holding that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's skirt on the subway, a practice widely known as "upskirting." The court, and the justice who wrote the opinion, have since weathered harsh -- and undeserved -- criticism. On Thursday, state lawmakers passed a bill banning upskirting, but that new law—which yet to be signed by the governor-- will still be subject to the same judicial scrutiny if it fails to adequately define the crime and the elements thereof.

No one, including the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, condones upskirting. But the court is not in the business of "condoning" activity, nor is it in a position to adjudicate the fairness of the outcome. The court is in the very limited business of applying the law enacted by the legislatures, and it did just that. In fact, it carefully applied the definitions provided by both the Legislature and Webster's dictionary. The problem isn't the justice; it's the statute, as wrtitten, itself.

Danny Cevallos
Danny Cevallos

General Laws c. 272, § 105(b) provides:

"Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person's knowledge and consent, shall be (guilty and punished)."

The Court recognized that the statute, as written, breaks down into five elements: 1. The defendant willfully photographed. 2. The victim was nude or partially nude. 3. The defendant intended to photograph surreptitiously. 4. The victim was in a place where she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being "so photographed." 5. The absence of consent.

The only elements really in dispute were Nos. 2 and 4. The defendant's argument was that, under the statute, the female passenger was not "nude or partially nude," nor was she in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Commonwealth had to prove both of these for a conviction, along with the other elements. The failure of any one of these elements meant the failure of them all.

Let's break this down.

Partial nudity

Marshal accused of taking upskirt pics

First, consider the legal definition of "partially nude." Most of our personal definitions of partial nudity were formed by vague warnings from opening credits on Cinemax movies in the 1990s. But "partial nudity" is actually a legal concept, with a legal definition.

The law defines it as "the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola."

Unfortunately, the statute, as written, ded not provide a definition of "exposure," so the court properly turned to Webster's dictionary, which defines it as "a condition or instance of being laid bare or exposed to view."

To the court, "partially nude" means having private parts that are uncovered and visible to another person's eyes. "A person who is ... partially nude," according to the court, is a person who is partially clothed but whose private parts are exposed in plain view when photographed. It appears from the court's opinion that "partially nude" is not to be confused with "almost nude," as one might be if one's private parts are covered but she or he is wearing only underwear. Who knew nudity was so complicated?

What happened to "I know it when I see it?" Apparently, that phrase works for defining pornography, but when it comes to nudity, the court is a bit of a stickler. In Massachusetts, it appears that a "female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing."

Reasonable expectation of privacy

The court went on to discuss the fourth statutory element: whether the victims were "in such place and circumstance (where the person) would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed."

To the court, because the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority is a public transit system operating in a public place that uses cameras, the two alleged victims -- and all female straphangers -- were not in a place where they reasonably would or could have had an expectation of privacy.

The prosecution valiantly argued that privacy is less about the location where the photographing occurs than the location on the body photographed. The court dismissed this argument. While on the subway, a woman has a diminished expectation of privacy; she wears a skirt at her own risk.

Though reasonable minds can definitely disagree about where we have "reasonable" expectations of privacy, for purposes of this case, it's immaterial. The way the statute was written, the defendant was "not guilty" the moment any one of the statutory elements failed. This case was over at "partial nudity."

The opinion raises privacy issues unique to female clothing -- and, in particular, the skirt. It's a garment that from 90% of vantage points completely conceals undergarments. It's the other 10% that is problematic; sit or stand in the wrong place or position, and undergarments are now visible.

Even more problematic, if a defendant photographs a woman at the beach in a bikini, she is neither partially nude nor does she have an expectation of privacy. But if she then puts on a sarong and hops on a bus, should it be illegal to photograph up her skirt? This definitely feels like a moral invasion of privacy, but under statutes like the one here, it might not be an illegal invasion of privacy.

Unfortunately for female subway passengers -- and men in kilts -- being upskirted in public by a disturbed person and his camera-phone is still not illegal in Massachusetts. Under the statute the Court considered, the act neither photographs partial nudity nor violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. That understandably drew some ire. Indeed, if the law does not change, it represents a harbinger of failed future prosecutions of subway peeping Toms. But ire at the Massachusetts Supreme Court is misdirected. After all, the justices only interpreted the statute; they didn't write it.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Danny Cevallos.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1305 GMT (2105 HKT)
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1149 GMT (1949 HKT)
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1723 GMT (0123 HKT)
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1938 GMT (0338 HKT)
SEATTLE, WA - SEPTEMBER 04: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell walks the sidelines prior to the game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers at CenturyLink Field on September 4, 2014 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)
Martha Pease says the NFL commissioner shouldn't be judge and jury on player wrongdoing.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1315 GMT (2115 HKT)
It's time for a much needed public reckoning over U.S. use of torture, argues Donald P. Gregg.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1225 GMT (2025 HKT)
Peter Bergen says UK officials know the identity of the man who killed U.S. journalists and a British aid worker.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1128 GMT (1928 HKT)
Joe Torre and Esta Soler say much has been achieved since a landmark anti-violence law was passed.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2055 GMT (0455 HKT)
David Wheeler wonders: If Scotland votes to secede, can America take its place and rejoin England?
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1241 GMT (2041 HKT)
Jane Stoever: Society must grapple with a culture in which 1 in 3 teen girls and women suffer partner violence.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2036 GMT (0436 HKT)
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently said the world as we know it could be obliterated instantaneously. Meg Urry says fear not.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2211 GMT (0611 HKT)
Bill Clinton's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 went through 22 drafts. But he always insisted on including a call to service.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2218 GMT (0618 HKT)
Joe Amon asks: What turns a few cases of disease into thousands?
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1721 GMT (0121 HKT)
Sally Kohn says bombing ISIS will worsen instability in Iraq and strengthen radical ideology in terrorist groups.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 2231 GMT (0631 HKT)
Analysts weigh in on the president's plans for addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1327 GMT (2127 HKT)
Artist Prune Nourry's project reinterprets the terracotta warriors in an exhibition about gender preference in China.
September 10, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
The Apple Watch is on its way. Jeff Yang asks: Are we ready to embrace wearables technology at last?
ADVERTISEMENT