Court reverses guilty plea of Minnesota man who recorded naked woman
ST. PAUL, Minn. (FOX 9) - The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the guilty plea against a man who made an unwanted recording of a naked woman, with justices saying what the man did doesn't fit the language of the state law.
In the ruling, the court reversed the plea of a man for interference of privacy in 2017. According to the ruling, the man admitted to recording a nude video of a woman during a date without her permission. After the date, the woman reported to West St. Paul police that the man had sent naked images of her to his phone, using her phone.
The man ultimately pled guilty to the charge but, before sentencing, tried to withdraw his plea.
While the Court of Appeals ruled against him, the state supreme court found that the law didn't match up with the alleged crime. Justices write the man had recorded a video of the woman inside her apartment. But, as the court points out, the law requires the defendant to record the victim "through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling".
As the man and woman were in the same room, justices said that distinction wasn't met.
In the Court of Appeals, judges ruled that the camera's aperture counted under the law. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court felt that definition didn't make sense.
"The State argues, an individual satisfies the ‘through... any... aperture of a house or place of dwelling’ element by simply crossing through an aperture of the dwelling to gain access to it," Justice Anne K. McKeig wrote. "This interpretation is consistent with the discrete ‘aperture of a house’ phrase contained in the statute, but violates basic rules of grammar when considered against the broader language in subdivision 1(b)(2)."
The court does note that the court's ruling could "embolden stalkers" but says it's up to the legislature to fix the statute to meet modern-day violations of privacy.
"Technology has rapidly evolved over the past two decades," the ruling reads. "We note that in that period, the Legislature has amended Minn. Stat. § 609.746 only twice, with neither amendment substantively changing the conduct criminalized in the statute.3 But whether technological advancements should prompt amendments to this statute is a question for the Legislature, not this court."