Will Undies Videos Still Be Skirting the Law?

Mark David Perelli was arrested Jan. 5 in Long Beach and was accused of videotaping down a woman’s blouse and up her skirt while she was shopping in a shoe store.

Just a week earlier, that kind of invasion of a woman’s privacy would have been legal.

Perelli has been charged under a law, which took effect Jan. 1, that makes it much more clear that such sleazy invasions of privacy are a misdemeanor violation.

Perelli has pleaded not guilty. But police contend he hid his camera in a shopping bag with a hole in it. If convicted, Perelli could face up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine.

The new law stems from a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Dick Ackerman (R-Fullerton), after police complaints that under-the-skirt shots were an increasing problem--but difficult to prosecute. Ackerman cited a Disneyland arrest of a man with a hidden camera in a long-handled shopping bag. The man had recorded about 30 women on an hour of videotape when he was apprehended. But prosecutors later realized that, outrageous as his conduct seemed to have been, he had not broken any laws.

And another skirt chaser was arrested before the new law for similarly taping women at MainPlace/Santa Ana. His attorney, Dennis O’Connell, argued that the law only covered places where you have an expectation of privacy, such as public bathrooms or changing rooms. A judge agreed and the man was acquitted.

Under the new law, both the MainPlace/Santa Ana and Disneyland cases would likely have wound up in convictions.

When Gov. Gray Davis signed the Ackerman bill, his press secretary, Michael Bustamente, said, “The bill addresses the need to punish a despicable act of behavior.”

But hawkers of some of these videotapes argue that they’re only giving the public what they want.

Sadly, it’s true.

There’s a whole row of ‘up-the-skirt videos at my local video store. And if you try the Internet, the number of such Web sites is almost endless.

But the Perelli case will be watched closely by legal pundits, especially here in Orange County, where the bill originated.

“Everybody wants to talk about the Perelli case,” said Long Beach City Prosecutor Ray George.

If Perelli actually did videotape these women’s undergarments surreptitiously, will he argue that he did not know the law had changed just four days before? George sees that as no defense at all: “Knowing the law is the responsibility of all of us.”

Perelli’s attorney, Tim O’Reilly of Long Beach, politely declined to discuss what his client did or did not do. But he pointed out that prosecutors must prove that Perelli’s conduct meets the requirements of the new law. They key language, O’Reilly said, will be whether Perelli ventured past the boundary where women had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

He described Perelli, 34, as “a nice guy who is engaged, and has nothing to do with videotaping for a living. He doesn’t even own a computer.”

Added O’Reilly: “It looks like this case is going to boil down to whether Mr. Perelli’s actions were annoying or illegal. And we may find out that being annoying is illegal.”

One quirk of the new law: Those videos that invade women’s privacy that you can rent at your local video store are still on the shelf.

*

Jerry Hicks’ column appears Monday and Thursday. Readers may reach Hicks by calling (714) 966-7789 or e-mail to jerry.hicks@latimes.com