RA 9995 – ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009

BRUCE WAYNE DEVRIES v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-18-971, 588 S.W.3 139 (2019)

FACTS:

The victims in this case are Bruce Wayne Devries’ adopted teenage daughters, AD and
PD. AD was thirteen (13) and PD was twelve (12) when they were adopted by Devries.

At trial, AD, who was sixteen (16) at the time, testified generally that Devries made her
uncomfortable and made sexual remarks all the time. Specifically, she observed him
watching her thru the bathroom window when she was taking a shower, she found a
baby monitor in the corner of the bathroom and in her bedroom, and she found holes in
the walls between her room and his. She stated that he repeatedly texted her and asked
for nude photographs.

Fifteen (15)-year-old PD also testified generally about her relationship with Devries. She
testified that he made numerous inappropriate sexual comments to her and engaged in
inappropriate touching. As to the video-voyeurism charges, PD specifically testified that
she once caught Devries using his phone to video her from underneath her bedroom
door.

ISSUE:

Can Devries be charged of video voyeurism?

RULING:

Yes, he can.

HELD:

A person commits the crime of video voyeurism if he uses “ any camera, videotape,
photo-optical, photoelectric, or any other image recording device for the purpose of
secretly observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping a person present in a
residence, place of business, school, or other structure, or any room or particular
location within that structure, if that person (1) is in a private area out of public view; (2)
has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (3) has not consented to the observation.

Devries does not challenge the inappropriateness of the videos; instead, he argues that
the children had no expectation of privacy in their parents’ home.

The Court finds his argument unpersuasive. The victims in this case were in private
areas of their home, and the jury was presented with evidence that they had not
consented to Devries’ actions.

Even if these children do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their family
home for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, under the facts of this case, they clearly
had a reasonable expectation that Devries would not view, film, or photograph them
behind their closed bedroom and bathroom doors in the manner and for the purpose in
which did. Devries has cited no convincing authority to compel us to hold otherwise.

- AIMEE N. CALO -
 RA 9995 – ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009

STATE OF LUISIANA v. JAMES BOUDREAUX

No. 41,660-KA, 13 December 2006

FACTS:

Eighteen (18)-year-old victim lived with James Boudreaux, who was her stepfather. She
had lived with him and her mother since she was eleven (11) years old and chose to live
with him and his son after her mother and Boudreaux separated. The victim had her
own bedroom and bathroom in the trailer. Unbeknownst to the victim, Boudreaux has
installed a Radio Shack 2.4 Ghz wireless camera in the entertainment center in the
teenager’s bedroom. Boudreaux connected the receiver for this camera to a video
cassette recorder and for four (4) months, he videotaped the victim, sometimes while
she was dressing and undressing and at times while she was completely nude.

ISSUE:

Did Boudreaux commit video voyeurism?

RULING:

Yes, he did.

HELD:

Video Voyeurism is (1) the use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photoelectric,
or any other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing,
photographing, filming, or videotaping a person where that a person has not consented
to the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping and it is for a lewd or
lascivious purpose; x x x (3) whoever commits the crime of video voyeurism when the
observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping is of any vaginal or anal
sexual intercourse, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, masturbation, any portion of
the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft
of the buttocks, vulva, or genitals shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) and be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one (1) year or more
than five (5) years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Although Boudreaux’s video voyeurism does not involve any physical contact or
violence, it is nonetheless a reprehensible violation of a personal nature. At eighteen
(18) years old, the victim may not legally have been a minor, but she was a young and
callow girl. Boudreaux’s perpetrated the crime against someone he had essentially
raised as a daughter.

- AIMEE N. CALO -
 RA 9995 – ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BENJAMIN WRIGHT

No. 40,945-KA, 931 So.2d 432 (2006)

FACTS:

Benjamin Wright was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant for an unrelated charge.
When the police stopped Wright’s vehicle to make the arrest, they found a box of
seventeen (17) videotapes in the trunk. Pursuant to a search warrant, closer inspection
of the videotapes revealed many were pornographic, and some were of female
customers changing clothes in the dressing room at Wright’s clothing store. Also seized
was a videotape of a television show newscast dealing with a video voyeurism case and
the fact that at the time Louisiana did not have a law prohibiting video voyeurism.
Louisiana enacted a video voyeurism law in 1999.

Wright was charged by amended bill of information with two (2) counts of video
voyeurism involving a child under the age of seventeen (17), a violation of La. R.S.
14:283(B)(4), and one count of video voyeurism, a violation of La. R.S.14:283(B)(3). At
Wright’s trial, police offers testified regarding the circumstances surrounding Wright’s
arrest and the subsequent seizure of the videotapes and searches.

ISSUE:

Can Wright be charged with video voyeurism?

RULING:

Yes, he can.

HELD:

Video voyeurism is (1) the use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric,
or any other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing,
photographing, filming, or videotaping a person where that person has not consented to
the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping and it is for a lewd or
lascivious purpose; (2) the transfer of an image obtained by activity described in
Paragraph (1) of this Subsection by live or recorded telephone message, electronic
mail, the internet, or a commercial online service; (3) whoever commits the crime of
video voyeurism when the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping is
of any vaginal or anal sexual intercourse, actual or simulated sexual intercourse,
masturbation, any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or of any
portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft of the buttocks, vulva, or genitals shall be fined not
more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and be imprisoned at hard labor for not
less than one (1) year or more than five (5) years, without benefit of parole, probation,
or suspension of sentence; or (4) whoever commits the crime of video voyeurism when
the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping is of any child under the
age of seventeen (17) with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of
the offender shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and be
imprisoned at hard labor for not less than two (2) years or more than ten (10) years
without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

The State is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Wright (1) used an image
recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or
videotaping another person; (2) that the person did not consent to being observed,

- AIMEE N. CALO -
 RA 9995 – ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009

photographed, or videotaped; (3) that the conduct was done for a lewd or lascivious
purpose; and (4) that the child being observed, photographed, or videotaped was under
the age of seventeen (17) years and for the intent to arouse or gratify the offense’s
sexual desires. For the foregoing, Wright can be charged of video voyeurism.

- AIMEE N. CALO -