Fictional Court Case! Give your input!

[SeaCalMaster]

From http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.

So basically, since I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, it actually is illegal to record someone else in your house. But in this case, I'd see how far her rape accusation takes her before I had to produce the tape. Somehow I don't think it would be that easy to prove a rape that didn't happen.

...unless the purpose was not to view the body/undergarments and instead for some other reason, which could be a thing in court. But the tape probably wouldn't be needed.

The bolded part is really important in that law. The only person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home is you. If you video tape her in her own bedroom, then it's illegal since she has a high expectation of privacy in her house. In a public place, or in the house of someone else, there is no expectation of privacy.

(B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified
in this paragraph:
(i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant,
employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim,
or an agent of any of these.

She was at least for the night a cohabitant and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy

http://law.onecle.com/california/family/6209.html
6209. "Cohabitant" means a person who regularly resides in the
household. "Former cohabitant" means a person who formerly regularly
resided in the household.

So, no, she was not a cohabitant as the law defines it, and in any case, that is not the defense being used.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

From http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.

So basically, since I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, it actually is illegal to record someone else in your house. But in this case, I'd see how far her rape accusation takes her before I had to produce the tape. Somehow I don't think it would be that easy to prove a rape that didn't happen.

...unless the purpose was not to view the body/undergarments and instead for some other reason, which could be a thing in court. But the tape probably wouldn't be needed.

The bolded part is really important in that law. The only person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home is you. If you video tape her in her own bedroom, then it's illegal since she has a high expectation of privacy in her house. In a public place, or in the house of someone else, there is no expectation of privacy.

(B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified
in this paragraph:
(i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant,
employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim,
or an agent of any of these.

She was at least for the night a cohabitant and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy

I'm sorry but no, a one night stand is not cohabitation.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dont thinkt here's a law stating that you cant film something in your own home as long as youre not profitting from it in some way (because then its about selling a person's image). So I dont think she has a case for that and it would get thrown out, though that sounds creepy enough the lawyer would look for another reason to do with the camera.

As for the rape case, I dont think the owman has a case either because as long as she wasnt under duress and meant her consensual agreement and you have proof. So sounds liek the guy walks away clean, although your public image may be a bit in question if word spreads that youre filming people hving sex with you in your own home without at least saying something first. I dont think you'll get in trouble, but that's not really a reputation I'd want.

EDIT:

... But in this case, I'd see how far her rape accusation takes her before I had to produce the tape. Somehow I don't think it would be that easy to prove a rape that didn't happen. ...

pretty sure in court both parties have to submit all their evidence to each other so there's nothing hidden and both cases can be presented in the clearest way (and so the other party pretty much cant incriminate themselves in some way). so you'd have to show the tape and the woman would watch and then she'd be able to say invasion of privacy. you cant hide it.

EDIT 2: I should really read a whole threat before posting, esepcially since its only a page but I digress

I don't think she'd want to sue you outside of court.
Lying to the courts and suing someone for a rape that didn't happen would be a felony, not sure which though, I'm guessing either fraud or perjury (if you do go to court), heck it might even be both.

Not very fluent with law lingo but I'm pretty sure a case of recording someone having sex without consent would give a lesser punishment than a felony. Either way you could counter-sue for defamation or stress and get your money back from the "recording without consent" dealio.

On the man/defendent's part, you could also probably say defamation of character if you can prove she's talked abut it and its lead to physical harm/loss (the opinion keeping you from being hired or accepted somewhere or even threats to you from otuside parties). If youre the really sensitive type or someone with high anxiety (like myself) and you can prove the worry caused has hurt (say you formed a stomach ulcer or something from the stress and you had proof sich as a hospital bill) you could say emotional distress. even compensation of wages if it caused you to miss work.

though all hree of those are kinda hard to prove on their own, and even the woman would likely be unable to prove its defamation (sicne it sounds like this is happening in a close span) and likely couldnt admit stress until after she found out about the video and even then the judge could just rule it and all copies be destoryed at the end of the case.

 

[Lieju]

Doing something illegal doesn't magically turn legal if it helps you get out of some other accusation.

If you're accused of murder and prove your innocence by proving you were on the other side of town stealing a car, it doesn't make the theft legal.

So the question then is whether filming someone having sex without consent is illegal.
I'm not a lawyer, but at least it's not really morally right, if you ask me.

Since it's your house, I guess it can be argued that she should have accepted the possibility of surveillance?

 

[Towels]

You are a guy. You meet a girl and the two of you go back to your place for some consensual sex. One month after the encounter the girl claims you raped her and you go to court. However you SECRETLY videotaped the consensual sex and show this video to court to get free from the rape charges.

I love hypotheticals, but how are you so sure that showing the tape would exonerate the guy? Considering how she doesn't know it, unless he got the girl to say something like "Yes, I am of sound mind and I want to have consensual sex" then all the video would show is a woman not resisting. Sure, she might say something like that during foreplay, but she is still claiming date rape.

What I am asking is: what is the nature of the Date Rape charge? Is she claiming he threatened and assaulted her? The video would disproof that.

Or is she claiming she was drunk and taken advantage of? Because I doubt the video would be able to disproof that.

 

[Strazdas]

You are a guy. You meet a girl and the two of you go back to your place for some consensual sex. One month after the encounter the girl claims you raped her and you go to court. However you SECRETLY videotaped the consensual sex and show this video to court to get free from the rape charges. However the girl is now sueing you for the videotape because she didn't consent to being filmed.

Extra facts to consider:
The videotape hasn't been spread to the internet, only you have seen it before the court.
The case about not consenting to being filmed is handled by another jury and judge.
And to help on the laws surrounding the whole thing we would be located in California
so California laws and everything count into the equation.

Here it is illegal to film anyone without their written permission. with exception of it being used as a background (for example a TV report on something and someone walks past in a background). You know those cameras on cars to prove whos fault it is for the acicident? yeah if they catch peoples faces they are breaking the law. their not popular here though.
That being said, this would turn out in oen of two ways depending on how good the advocate is.
the good way: you use this as a proof for false charges, the charges are dropped and then you get sued and pay fine for illegal filming.
The bad way: the court discard this proof as "collected illegaly" and do not take it into consideration (in theory, there is precedent, thought not with rape being filmed). In which case it depends n the rest whether you go to jail or not (honestly if the judge already saw the tape anyway its unlikely). in which case you still can get sued separately for filming her.
I do not know if California laws are different from those. IT all depends on how much legal power you have to film "your room and everything in it".

I'd say the film, having not been spread throughout the internet, generally qualifies as surveillance footage, and there's no law saying that you require consent to be filmed on someone else's private property, whether it be a school, store, or a person's home. She consented right as she walked through the door, so she has nothing to stand on. Now if you did it in her home? That is a grey area.

you know these videocamera stickers? they arent there to make you comfortable, they are there becuase law requires you to be advised beforehand about surveilance and to chose not to go there. so unless he told her hes filming.....

You are a guy. You meet a girl and the two of you go back to your place for some consensual sex. One month after the encounter the girl claims you raped her and you go to court. However you SECRETLY videotaped the consensual sex and show this video to court to get free from the rape charges.

I love hypotheticals, but how are you so sure that showing the tape would exonerate the guy? Considering how she doesn't know it, unless he got the girl to say something like "Yes, I am of sound mind and I want to have consensual sex" then all the video would show is a woman not resisting. Sure, she might say something like that during foreplay, but she is still claiming date rape.

What I am asking is: what is the nature of the Date Rape charge? Is she claiming he threatened and assaulted her? The video would disproof that.

Or is she claiming she was drunk and taken advantage of? Because I doubt the video would be able to disproof that.

Correct me if im wrong, but since when does the fact that she is intoxicated somehow turns a yes into no?

 

[Keymik]

Snip

Off-topic again: Little specific OP, not telling us something

I know what it sounds like but it truly is made up(Though saying that just makes it sound even more suspicious xD)
I do however live in Denmark so the whole point with the California laws wouldn't make much sense
(But now that I look at it all again I really made it all sound super suspicious)

You are a guy. You meet a girl and the two of you go back to your place for some consensual sex. One month after the encounter the girl claims you raped her and you go to court. However you SECRETLY videotaped the consensual sex and show this video to court to get free from the rape charges.

I love hypotheticals, but how are you so sure that showing the tape would exonerate the guy? Considering how she doesn't know it, unless he got the girl to say something like "Yes, I am of sound mind and I want to have consensual sex" then all the video would show is a woman not resisting. Sure, she might say something like that during foreplay, but she is still claiming date rape.

What I am asking is: what is the nature of the Date Rape charge? Is she claiming he threatened and assaulted her? The video would disproof that.

Or is she claiming she was drunk and taken advantage of? Because I doubt the video would be able to disproof that.

In the scenario the tape showed the intercourse was consensual, but the point isn't really how. You can say she claimed he threatened her or something but the scenario plays out as if you already cleared the rape charge with the video as evidence.

 

[Auberon]

How many of those are definite "not guilty" and "inconclusive her word against his word" ? In any case, as I understand it comes to non-consensual recording, would either party agree to destroying the contents and retracting a viable libel suit for false accusations?