on the answer of the city attn of Seattle re voyeurism

I have less work and things to do for the next week.  I have just spent a little time reading over the answer of the Seattle city attorney’s office in the matter of the anti-voyeurism law.

The answer of the city attn’s office was written by 2 attorneys apparently.  They are Jessica Nadelman and Gary Smith, who are assistants to Peter Holmes.  Apparently there are two attorneys in the area . . . there is a Gary T Smith working for the city and another Gary Smith who practiced in Indiana, I think.  Gary T Smith has helped handle at least two other constitutional law arguments for the city, it appears.

Most of the city’s answer consists of denials due to lack of knowledge.  However, there are some interesting parts, worth some questions . . .

Paragraph 6 of the complaint says, “The SMC is so broad that it criminalizes or is liable to criminalize some viewings and photography of the public performances of cheerleaders, athletes and dancers and where there is no expectation of privacy at all; the SMC criminalizes many instances of photography of celebrities or of ordinary persons at the public beach when the wind or waves or their sunbathing or athletic activities has dislodged, moved or shifted their underwear, shorts and/or bikini tops or bottoms.  The SMC is so broad that it can criminalize the viewing or photography which includes exposed bra straps in a venue such as Greenlake . . .”

Answer for paragraph 6 is deny.

Par 17 of the complaint says, “a single police officer may choose to act by the letter of the law, in distinction to the majority of his colleagues . . .”  The city’s answer to this is to deny.

Why the city denies this, I do not know.

The city denies knowledge of its parks being used at times for amateur dancing . . . although one of its parks personnel has issued permits for such use.

Paragraph 21 is the claim that exposed bra straps viewing may be criminalized and answer to that is to deny.  Paragraph 45 is again on bra strap viewing and the city denies that it can be criminalized.  Not sure why they city denies this . . .

Paragraph 53 says that the partial exposure and partial concealment of an intimate area  is liable to create questions and problems for a jury.  The city denies this.

Paragraph 55 says that when an amateur burlesque dancer is performing in public and has her nip-covering fall off that those taking her photography may be in violation of the law and the answer denies this.  A burlesque dancer commonly wears a nip covering of diameter of an inch or 2 inches . . . and the nips coverings not rarely fall off in certain performances . . .

Paragraph 64 says that various items of clothing worn by women, unless their edges are always touching the skin, cause some areas to be visible from some angles and covered from others.  The city says it lacks sufficient information and denies this.

The city claims to have no knowledge of the females fashion called sideboob.  See paragraph 40 and its denial.

Paragraph 77 says that the only way to view or photograph an intimate area is if that area is not continuously covered from all angles by opaque clothing.

The city denies this; their answer makes no sense.

Paragraph 82 says that police would be inclined to take the law as broadly as possible and leave it to the courts to sort things out.  The city’s answer denies this.

However, in other situations, I believe that one or more police persons have told me that their approach, as a police person, is to take the law broadly when there is ambiguity and let the courts and prosecutor straighten things out . . .

Paragraph 92 says that the city lacks an interest when a gal is in a short skirt and sits in such a way that her panties or vulva are exposed to ordinary view from viewpoints other than on the ground or just above the ground.  The city denies this.

I don’t understand the denial for paragraph 6.  I also don’t believe the claim that the city lacks knowledge of the result of wearing clothing of which the edges are not always touching the skin, because one of the attorneys is a woman and she has surely at times worn a dress or skirt with a hem that was not always touching the skin.

Also, why does the city deny that viewing or photographing intermittently exposed bra straps is criminalized by SMC?  The bra is a form of underwear and lots of times, bra straps become exposed simply by walking, running, twisting or athletic activities which had been begun with the bra straps covered.


This form is for those who don't wish to comment using a facebook login

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *