Man Found Guilty in Videotaping of Girlfriend

video cameraMark Jahnke, a former Waunakee High School chemistry teacher, has been found guilty of an interesting offense: videotaping his girlfriend. Jahnke argued that his girlfriend had no expectation of privacy since she consensually exposed herself to him. Two judges disagreed on the Wisconsin appellate court.

Judge Paul Ludsten rejected the argument held that Jahnke’s argument would leave women without legal recourse anytime that they allowed a third party to view them in the nude. Ludsten noted “If she disrobes in a medical facility and permits medical personnel to view her, such personnel could record her” without violating the law. IIt is one thing to be viewed in the nude by a person at some point in time, but quite another to be recorded in the nude so that a recording exists that can be saved or distributed and viewed at a later time.”

Jahnke pleaded guilty in 2007 to making a nude recording of his girlfriend. Sentencing was delayed pending his appeal.

Judge Charles Dykman dissented and noted that the state law under which Jahnke was charged does not prohibit what he did and agreed with him that the woman did not have an expectation of privacy.

Putting aside the applicability of the state law, a videotaping does appear to exceed the scope of consent in such circumstances. A similar argument was made recently in the case of a man who recorded his wife in their bedroom, here.

For the full story, click here.

6 thoughts on “Man Found Guilty in Videotaping of Girlfriend”

  1. Mespo,

    Happy New Year!

    Always loved that ‘Signs’ tune, but I was referring more to the sheer idiocy of contending that people have no expectation of privacy while engaged in acts of intimacy behind closed doors.

    How the hell does a case like that survive summary judgment?

    BTW, I was wondering if you agreed with my comparison between Scalia & Israel.



  2. Happy Anniversary JT/Leslie!
    (and many more no matter how you count them)

    Happy New Year to All the “Usual Suspects”:

    Mespo, Rafflaw, Jill, MASkeptic, Gyges, Budda, FFLEO, rcampbell, seamus, Sally, Bob esq., Mike Spindell, Charity, Patty C, Waynebro, Jonolan, Lindy Lou, Mojo, Sherry, pardon me, and all the others whose comments appear here regularly – I wish you nothing but the best!

    To the terribly twisted trolls a toast to 2009!
    May you find better things to do with your time!

    With tips to Bob and Mespo I can’t help referencing my favorite song about signs:
    Sign on the Window says “lonely”
    sign on the door says “no company allowed”
    sign on the street says “you don’t own me”
    sign on the porch says “three’s a crowd”

    (i want to find out what it’s all about)

    Built me a cabin in Utah
    Marry me a wife, catch rainbow trout
    Have a bunch of kids who call me “Pa”
    That must be what it’s all about!
    That must be what it’s all about!
    -Bob Dylan

  3. This is where the non-lawyers ask, “What about the law of common decency?” Not as common as we think, especially since another judge dissented. I have nieces who went to Waunakee High, and I hate the thought of them sitting in class and being graded by this perv.

    Maybe it’s timely to invest in flannel nightgowns.

  4. Hey Bob, Esq., Happy New Year! And I love the question about the signs. Here is a little video by the Five Man Electric Band about signs to start off the new year right:

  5. So, they invented the ‘Do Not Disturb’ signs for Hotel room doors so that occupants could anticipate their partner publishing videos of what went on behind said doors?

    What’s the penalty for Contempt of Reason?

Comments are closed.