Three male Tennessee judges all rule it's OK to film clothed women without their consent if they're in public - as they throw out unlawful photography conviction against deviant who stalked women and recorded their 'private areas' for sexual gratification
Three appeals court judges in Tennessee have ruled that it is not illegal to film women fully clothed in public without their permission, claiming there is no expectation of privacy in the digital age.
David Eric Lambert was convicted of unlawful photography, along with a sexual battery count, after he was found to have taken 'close-up' images of three women's 'private areas' in stores around Kingsport in 2016, court records show.
The 2nd Judicial District Public Defender's office challenged the convictions after Lambert said he didn't think he was doing anything wrong because the images were taken in public. Late last month, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judges D. Kelly Thomas Jr., James Curwood Witt Jr. and Thomas T. Woodall agreed.
'Exposure to the capture of our images by cameras has become, perhaps unfortunately, a reality of daily life in our digital age,' Thomas wrote in his opinion.
David Eric Lambert was convicted of unlawful photography and sexual battery, after he took 'close-up' images of three women's 'private areas' in stores in 2016. He was sentenced to nearly four years in prison and the 2nd Judicial District Public Defender's office challenged the convictions after Lambert said he didn't think he was doing anything wrong because it was public
![Judge James Curwood Witt Jr. said: 'No evidence suggested that the defendant attempted to photograph [the victim] underneath her clothing'](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/05/12/16/28306962-8311777-Judge_James_Curwood_Witt_Jr_said_No_evidence_suggested_that_the_-a-23_1589296584829.jpg)
'It is simply not reasonable to expect that our fully-clothed images will remain totally private,' Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judges D. Kelly Thomas Jr. (left) wrote. Judge James Curwood Witt Jr. (right) said: 'No evidence suggested that the defendant attempted to photograph [the victim] underneath her clothing'
'When nearly every person goes about her day with a handheld device capable of taking hundreds of photographs and videos and every public place is equipped with a wide variety of surveillance equipment, it is simply not reasonable to expect that our fully-clothed images will remain totally private.'
Lambert, 40, had prior misdemeanor convictions for exposing himself and committing sexual acts in public at the time, and one of the women said he grabbed her at a Dollar Tree store, according to Lambert's appeal.
Thomas T. Woodall agreed there's not an expectation of privacy in the digital age
He later admitted to Kingsport Police detective Martin Taylor that he took the images for sexual gratification and 'crossed moral boundaries,' though he said he did not think he committed a crime, the documents said.
The detective said he had to field calls from numerous women in March 2016, complaining of a man with a 'creepy grin' and a cell phone who was following them around while shopping at stores such as Ross, Hobby Lobby and Walmart.
Lambert took photographs of their buttocks. He claimed he is willing to get help for his 'problem' and that he meant no harm.
'This all started about four or five years ago when my father died of cancer. I began videoing in public. I like blonde haired females but have no preference really,' he said in a statement.
'I did not mean to scare anyone and only filmed the females for my own purposes. I just like using the video function on my phone. It’s kind of like an obsession with the technological aspect of a phone. I have never posted any of the images I have taken on the internet or share with other people.
Lambert, 40, had prior misdemeanor convictions for exposing himself and committing sexual acts in public at the time. One of the women said he grabbed her at a Dollar Tree store. He is pictured left and right in old mug shots from 2016
'It is simply not reasonable to expect that our fully-clothed images will remain totally private,' Judge D. Kelly Thomas Jr. wrote in his opinion
'I actually did not think I was doing anything wrong because everything was done in a public place however I realize this was not a good decision on my part. If it was not illegal, it was definitely crossing moral boundaries.'
Lambert filmed approximately 20 videos of women at six stores but Taylor could only retrieve three videos so Lambert was only charged in three of the cases.
One woman testified that on February 27, 2016, she encountered Lambert at Walmart said that 'the look he was giving' made her 'very uncomfortable,' so she left to get to her car.
Lambert said he didn't mean to hurt anyone and would get help for his 'problem'. His case now turns to re-sentencing after the defense argued that his actions would not embarrass or offend the 'ordinary person'
She said he also left the store and headed in the same direct as her, 'matched her pace' and was within an arm's length distance. The woman added that he held his cell phone 'down and out' toward the 'lower half' of her body.
The motion to dismissed states that he didn't speak to her and when she asked him to stop he did. It states he didn't reach her vehicle.
The woman was wearing black pants and t-shirt and the defense stated that when asked if the store security cameras could capture the same footage, she said yes.
The same day, two sisters claimed that he was 'uncomfortably close' to them at Hobby Lobby and he 'would peek through things and peek around things' to look at them.
He fled the store when one of the women took a picture of him.
Less than three weeks later a woman said he stood very close to her at a Dollar Tree store and when she looked a man with a 'really creepy grin' was holding a cell phone close to 'the right side of her rear end'.
When she asked him to stop he 'grabbed the right side of her rear end and said, "Nice (expletive)"' she testified.
Lambert was convicted of unlawful photography for the Dollar Tree and Walmart incidents. Sullivan County Criminal Court Judge James F. Goodwin Jr. had sentenced Lambert to nearly four years in prison.
The 2nd Judicial District Public Defender's office challenged the unlawful photography convictions, stating that there was not reasonable belief such photographs would offend or embarrass 'an ordinary person' even if it did for the women on an individual basis.
The judges agreed that Lambert's actions were not criminal, noting that there is no expectation of privacy in such public places in the digital age.
Judge Witt agreed, writing about the Walmart incident: 'She acknowledged that she was in full view of any person present in the store or the parking lot.
'No evidence suggested that the defendant attempted to photograph [the victim] underneath her clothing or once she was inside her automobile. Consequently, we conclude that Ms. Sutton did not have a subjective expectation of privacy.'
The defense argued that Lambert did not admit any wrongdoing in his statement. Judge Witt ruled that 'because the trial court erred by admitting the defendant’s statement into evidence and because that error cannot be classified as harmless, the defendant would be entitled to a new trial'.
However Witt added that the evidence was insufficient to support Lambert's conviction so the conviction was reversed, and the charge was dismissed last month.
Lambert's case now returns to a Sullivan County Criminal Court judge for resentencing.
He was also convicted for sexual battery in the Dollar Tree incident and it remains upheld, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported Sunday.
