Peeping Tom Charges: How to determine prurient intent

The arrest of the president of Rams Head concert venues and restaurants has brought peeping tom crimes back into the spotlight over the past few weeks. The 37-year-old owner of the company turned himself into police recently and is facing multiple law suits. He now faces six charges of peeping tom violations and six charges of visual surveillance with prurient intent.

We live in a digital age that’s seemingly on some form of camera at all times. From cameras on mobile phones to surveillance cameras, nearly every facet of life is caught on tape. That’s left many people wondering: When does a video cross the line into illegal surveillance? And what is prurient intent?

Visual surveillance

It’s certainly reasonable for a business such as Rams Head to have surveillance cameras on-site. Cameras are commonplace in many bars, restaurants, and concert venues. In fact, surveillance cameras are found in almost all businesses.

There’s nothing wrong with having video surveillance. Surveillance crosses the line into illegality, though, when it invades upon a person’s privacy. If the surveillance is setup in a “private place,” then it’s illegal under Maryland’s legal code.

State law defines a private place as a room in a public facility in which a person could fully or partially disrobe and have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The law includes a long list of example facilities, such as restaurants, bars, schools, hotels, offices, and nearly any other building that would have a room designated for privacy.

Many rooms could qualify under this definition, like a tanning booth, a dressing room, and even a sauna or locker room. However, the most common room to meet this definition is clearly the restroom. Using a restroom requires some level of partial disrobing and nearly everyone expects some privacy while doing so.

Surveillance also isn’t limited to video. Direct sight or the use of mirrors can count as visual surveillance under the law. Any attempt to gain sight of someone in a private place could lead to visual surveillance charges.

Prurient intent

Prurient intent is less defined, but it’s an important part of the law. By definition, spying on someone while they’re in a legally defined private place implies prurient intent. What other intent would one have to watch someone while they’re in a restroom, tanning booth, or locker room?

However, there can also be surveillance with prurient intent in public places. That can happen when someone’s private area is recorded without their permission and in a location in which they would not expect their private area to be recorded.

Maryland law defines private area as “naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or a female breast. Even if a person is not in a private place, they still can’t be recorded if the intent is to record a legally defined private area.

In the Rams Head incident, the owner allegedly hid a camera in a women’s bathroom wall. If that is true, it clearly meets the definition of a private place because it’s in a bathroom. It also meets the definition of prurient intent because the intent would seemingly be to record a woman’s private area.