State v. Glas
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBridge, J.
— Sean Glas and Richard Sorrells, in separate cases, were each found guilty of voyeurism for taking pictures underneath women’s skirts (“upskirt” voyeurism). Glas and Sorrells each contend that Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, does not apply to their actions because it does not criminalize upskirt photography in a public place. They both also assert that RCW 9A.44.115 is unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. We hold that RCW 9A.44.115, as written, does not render unlawful upskirt photography in public places; however we do not find the statute, taken as a whole,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited19 opinions
- City of Spokane v. DouglassWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- City of Seattle v. EzeWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- City of Tacoma v. LuveneWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- City of Seattle v. HuffWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- O'DAY v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1988
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- State v. HirschfelderWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. StevensonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- State v. StevensonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- State v. GlasWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Eugster v. City of SpokaneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.