Roman Polanski Update

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/30/polanski.release/index.html

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Please have a Happy Thanksgiving!! Take care- and stay safe! See you on Monday! Rick

Case 14-3

Case 14-3

Facts: Defendant attempted to extend a lease by faxing a renewal letter on the last day of the six-month notification period. Records confirmed that the fax was delivered successfully, but the plaintiff denied receiving the fax. Plaintiff refused to renew the fax and demanded that the defendant vacate the premises at the end of the term. Defendant refused so plaintiff filed an action for forcible entry.

Issue: Whether a fax or delivery of a written notice to renew a commercial lease is sufficient to exercise the timely renewal option of the lease.

Rationale: Kelly Moore's use of the fax served the same function and the same purpose as the two methods suggested by the lease and it was transmitted before the expiration of the deadline to renew.
Kelly-Moore also asserts that the lease specified that time was of the essence and that faxing the notice was the functional equivalent of personal delivery because it provided that virtually instantaneous communication.

Conclusion: Under these facts, we hold that the faxed or facsimile delivery of the written notice to renew the commercial lease was sufficient to exercise timely the renewal option of the lease. The mailbox rule: an acceptance is valid when it is placed in the mailbox. Mailbox rule has been expanded to apply to some faxes.

We agree because a fax is just as sufficient as mail and it is a form of instant communication.

Our Group Members:
Jennifer Ix
Christina Erny
Jimmy Thomas
Julian Strickland
Nick Kostielney

Arkansas cop tasers 10-year-old girl, local mayor calls for investigation

by FRANK GORMLIE on NOVEMBER 18, 2009

in CIVIL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, POPULAR, WAR, PEACE & EMPIRE

Editor: Once in awhile, there’s a story that we just cannot ignore. I know this has nothing to do about Ocean Beach, but it is an incredibly outrageous report, and goes to show at what level we have sunk to as a society.

OZARK, ARKANSAS. In a small town in this state, a police officer arrived at a home where he had been summoned for a domestic dispute. Officer Dustin Bradshaw found a ten year old girl curled up on the floor of her home, screaming and kicking at her mother, who was trying to get her to take a shower before bedtime.

“Her mother told me to tase her if I needed to,” Bradshaw wrote in his report of the November 12th incident. When Bradshaw tried to take her into custody, she kicked the officer in his groin. He then shot her with his Taser – he describes it as “a very brief drive stun to her back.”

Here is how he described it:

Upon arrival I made contact with a [the mother] and her daughter, [name blacked out]. [The girl] was balled up in the floor crying and screaming. I made several attempts to speak with her and she continued to behave in this manner. [The mother] tried to put [the girl] into the shower to get her ready for bed and I witnessed [the girl] screaming, kicking, and resisting every time her mother tried to touch her. Her mother told me to tase her if I needed to and at this point and [sic] we carried her to the shower. She refused to follow any of her mothers instructions and at this point I decided that there was not going to be a peaceful resolution to the issue. I moved her into the living room area and told her she was going to jail. She continued kicking and crying and I began to try to place her under arrest. She was jerking her arms away from me violently while I was trying to cuff her and thrashing about wildly. While she was violently kicking and verbally combative, [the girl] struck me with her legs and feet in the groin. The subject was actively resisting arrest at this time. I was having a difficult time placing the cuffs on her and administered a very very brief drive stun to her back with my taser. She immediately stopped resisting and was placed into handcuffs. She would not walk on her own and I had to carry her to my police car. She was taken to the Cecil Youth Shelter by direction [deleted].

[See copy of report below.]

Now Ozark Mayor Vernon McDaniel is calling for an investigation into whether the Taser use was appropriate. He also said Wednesday that the girl wasn’t injured and is now at the Western Arkansas Youth Shelter in Cecil. Yet he is requesting the Arkansas State Police to investigate the incident— and if they decline, the FBI.

“People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation,” McDaniel said. Since then, the state police has declined his request, as it only gets involved if the officer in question was accused of misconduct or targeted in an internal investigation.

No disciplinary action was taken against Bradshaw, said Police Chief Jim Noggle. He also declared that tasers are safe against unruly people who may be a danger to themselves or others. “We didn’t use the Taser to punish the child — just to bring the child under control so she wouldn’t hurt herself or somebody else,” Noggle told the press.

Anthony Medlock, the girl’s father, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his daughter has emotional problems, but that she didn’t have a weapon and shouldn’t have been Tasered. “My daughter does not deserve to be tased and be treated like an animal,” said Medlock, who is divorced from the girl’s mother and does not have custody.

“We don’t want to do things like this,” Police Chief Noggle said. “This is something we have to do. We’re required to maintain order and keep the peace.”

Case 14-2 Andrus v. State Department of Transportation

Karla Velazquez de Leon

Brittany Sheppard

Taylor Schramo

George Peniche

Justin Ditolla

Sean Aguilar

Case 14-2 Andrus v. State Department of Transportation, and City of Olympia

Facts:

-Andrus applied for position as building inspector and Hill told him he had the job

-On same day city checked employment references which were unsatisfactory so withdrew job offer

-Andrus sued city and the DOT for wrongful discharge and arguing that phone call was an employment contract

Issue:

-Whether the conversation they had on the phone constituted a valid contract

Rationale:

-Restatement of Contracts 33 says that if terms of a bargain are left open or vague then it should not be interpreted as an offer or acceptance.

-Hill’s call did not state anything about a starting date, salary, or benefits (no job details)

-Also, the call was supposed to be followed by a written offer for actual acceptance

Conclusion:

-A valid contract must state reasonably certain terms, since Hill’s call was very vague with no specified requirements the call was not a contract and therefore there was no breach of contract.

Statement of Agreement

The Restatement of Contracts clearly says that if there are terms that are left open or uncertain then it is not really an offer or acceptance. Hill’s call to Andrus was extremely vague, telling him only that he was their number one choice and would get the job. It did not however, include any of the details of the job offer. Since the terms of the job offer are so unclear, it is not an actual contract, therefore there was no breach of contract.

Our personal opinions are in line with the law, we feel that their conversation did not constitute a valid contract, the terms were not discussed.

Case 13-2 Pache v. Aviation Volunteer Fire Co.

1) Facts: Firefighter dies of heart atack while on duty. Wife sues city for worker compensation. Man worked for volunteer fire department which did not have a contract with city.

Issue: Whether there was an implied contract between Aviation Volunteer Fire Company and the City?

Rationale: City and Volunteer fire department worked hand in hand. Aviation has been in place since 1923 and have fought fires in conjunction with the FDNY. If aviation arrived at scene first, they were in charge of scene until FDNY arrived.

Conclusion: No written contract, but you cooperate and having a working relationship implied a contract.

2) Agree: Implied Contract = conduct of the parties, not necessarily a written contract. Aviation provides a service to the city. They have been doing so since 1923. The workers, although volunteers, should be compensated for the risks they undertake for the benefit of the community. Cooperation protects people in commercial relationships that don't necessarily have a written contract.

Name: Martin Jison, Dylan Leslie, Soren Croxall, Ryan Powell, Ed Hickey, Aman Saini

14-1 Lucy v Zehmer

F: Lucy wanted to purchase Zehmer's farm for eight years. One night Lucy approached Zehmer with a bet that Zehmer would not sell Lucy the farm for $50,000. Zehemer counter bet that Lucy pay would not pay $50,000. Over drinks they further discussed the bet or deal and eventually drew up a contract. Mr. and Mrs. Zehmer signed the contract as well as Lucy. Later Zehmer refused to honor the contract because it was a joke and he was under the influence of alcohol.

I: Whether the courts should use the subjective or objective test in determining if there was enforceable contract.

R: "The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party." The courts also held that despite the intentions of a party the actions which convey meaning to the other party must be consistant.

C: The Appeals court of Virginia found in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy because Zehmer's conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe that there was a real and binding contract.

Participants: Kevin P., Hannah M., Kelly K., Maki M., Nicole R., Skyler G., Ryan C., Justin N.

Opinion: Some of the group agree with the courts because Zehmer's actions, despite his intentions would lead a reasonable person to believe that he intended a real agreement and that the contract was in fact real. Despite his supposed alcohol consumption, he himself admitted that he was not intoxicated. Zehmer also admitted that the price was fair and that his true intentions were undisclosed to Lucy.

Others in the group however feel that despite Zehmer's poor decisions he should not loose his home and business because of something that was in his mind a joke. Also, it would be wrong of the court to intrude into the private lives and conversations of individuals. This could set a slippery slope for anyone who jokingly signs there name on napkin.

13-3 DCB Const. Co., Inc v CCDC : section 11:15-12:10

Group Members: William Vasko, Nick Sardo, Drew Kootman, Emily McMahon, Lauren Millslagle, Mackenzie Ott (9:05 Section), Mark Yeilding

DCB Const. Co., Inc. v. Central City Development Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals
940 P.2D 958

Case Brief
Facts:
Lessee of CCD hired DCB Construction to work on their leased property. Prior to DCB and CCD signing the contract CCD authorized and made a contract that said that they weren't liable for default payments. DCB began work but then stopped because the leasee failed to make rental payments. CCD evicted the lessee from the property. DCB sued CCD for payments due from the lessee.

Issue:
Whether CCD was liable to pay for the unjust enrichment of DCB.

Rationale:
The sole assertion of injustice appears to be based upon the inordinate value of the benefit DCB measures injustice on the basis of monetary advancement. The fact that the 3rd party fails to deliver the plaintiff with the consideration called for by the contract provides no proper basis for a claim of unjust enrichment. (Dynamic Business Law)

Conclusion:
The objection under the claim arises from the law of immutable justice and equity. The sole claim is based upon a contract implied in law, or unjust enrichment.

To recover under a claim for unjust enrichment, it must be established that:

1. A benefit was conferred upon the defendant
2. The defendant appreciated the benefit.
3. The benefit was accepted by the defendant under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for it to be retained without payments of its value. (Dynamic Business Law)
   

Group Opinion
We AGREE with the decision because it was explicit in the contract that CCD was not liable for the due payments to DCB.

Case 13-2

Group Members-

David Aiello, Alvaro Figueroa, Lexan Jaravata, Mark López, & Matt Rocco

PACHE V. AVIATION VOLUNTEER FIRE CO.

Case Brief

Facts: In New York City, Mr. Pache, who was the fire chief of the Aviation Volunteer Fire Company in the Bronx, suffered a fatal heart attack at the scene of a fire. His widow applied for Worker’s Compensation and was granted benefits by the Worker’s Compensation Board because it was found that there was an implied contract between Aviation and the New York City, giving rise to the city’s liability pursuant to the Volunteer Fireman’s Benefit Law. The city appealed.

Issue: Whether the claimant was covered within the Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law and whether or not an implied contract existed between New York City and Aviation. In relevant part, whether the Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law applied.

Rationale: The Worker’s Compensation Board was presented with evidence that Aviation had been in existence since 1923 and that it worked “hand-in-hand” with the local FDNY company to fight tires. There was evidence that the local fire company occasionally called Aviation to request assistance, and a representative of NYC provided evidence that NYC was aware of Aviation and knew that it fought fires in conjunction with the FDNY. There was no evidence that City officials or the local fire company ever objected to or rejected the services of Aviation. Furthermore, the City failed to produce an employee from the local FDNY company with knowledge of the relationship between the local fire company and Aviation as well as other relevant facts to the implied contract issue, and in turn, the Board was entitled to draw reasonable and adverse inferences. Ultimately, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that an implied-in-fact contract existed between Aviation and the City of New York.

*Note: An implied-in-fact contract arises out of the conduct of the parties.

Conclusion: It was concluded that an implied contract did exist between Aviation and New York City. Therefore, the Fireman's Benefit Law applies and the Worker’s Compensation Board may grant worker's compensation benefits to Pache's widow.

Agreement/Disagreement: We agree with the decision. The Volunteer Fireman’s Benefit Law was created because the Board recognizes the debt of gratitude the government owes to individuals who volunteer. By enacting this law, the Board supports and encourages participation by such organizations such as Aviation. Essentially, the purpose of the Volunteer Fireman’s Benefit Law is to benefit volunteers and to ensure that individuals such as Pache that are injured or killed in the line of duty receive proper worker's compensation benefits. The high stress situation fire did not help Pache’s condition. He should be protected under the Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law because he suffered the heart attack while under the line of duty. An implied-in-fact contract existed because it was understood that Aviation worked with New York City, and there didn't necessarily have to be a written agreement. If an implied-in-fact contract did exist, Pache should be entitled to worker's compensation, regardless of whether or not the heart attack that he suffered was due to the volunteer activity. The fact that he suffered in the line of duty should be sufficient enough to ensure that he receives benefits.

Case 14-1 Lucy v Zehmer

Facts: Zehmer and Lucy have been trying to come up with an agreement on the sale of Zehmer's property. One evening Lucy goes over to the Zehmer's establishment and begins to discuss the sale of property. Lucy bets that Zehmer would not accept $50,000 for the property. Prior to drinking alcohol, Zehmer said he would accept $50,000, but that Lucy would not pay that amount for it. Later in the evening once intoxicated, they both signed a contract stating that an agreement was reached to sell the property for $50,000.

Issue: Whether or not the courts should decide if the physical expression of the parties exhibit their intent to enter into a binding contract or if a lack of the party's mental assent be taken into account?

Rationale: Zehmer signed the contract but yet whispered to his wife that it was a joke while intending for Lucy not to hear that it was a joke. Thus, Lucy, believing that the contract was made in good faith, did not take the contract to be a joke because the following day he had the money ready to purchase the property.

Conclusion: The courts must look at the physical expressions of the parties to determine the validity of a contract because "[i]t is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind" (363).

As a group, we agree with the court's rationale and conclusion because the fact that he signed the contract and whispered to his wife that it was a joke proves that Zehmer was aware of the actual agreement at hand. Any reasonable person would assume that should a contract actually be signed between two parties over the sale of a property in good faith, the contract is valid and enforceable.

Participants: Yesenia Barberena, Star Hughes, Mike Walker, Morgan Payne, Devon Seal, Qi Chen

Ch 13-3 Case

Facts:

DCB construction Co & a lessee of CCD entered into an agreement for DCB to do work on a property. The lesee was given concent by development co and the contract signed. DCB began work but then stopped work due to lack of payment. DCB sued CCD for payments due from the Lessee= $333,119 total judgement.

Issue:

Whether CCD was unjustly enriched by DCB based upon an implied in law contract.

Rationale:

Recover a claim to unjust enrichment one must establish the following 3 things:

1. Benefit was conferred upon defendant

2. Defendant appreciated the benefit

3. Benefit was accepted by defendant under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for it to be retained without payment of its value

Court found that there was no allegation or proof that such performance resulted from some mistake or from fraud, duress, or other improper conduct by development co.

Conclusion:

Judgment in favor of DCB reversed because the unjust enrichment cannot stand. "As a matter of law, support the that such benefit was bestowed or retained unjustly. Hence, the judgment based conclusion on unjust enrichment cannot stand."

Group Consensus:

We think that the owner of the building shouldn't have to pay for the construction done by DCB. Therefore, we agree with the judgement because CCD gave DCB a written notice saying that they would not be held liable for any costs associated with the work that DCB would be performing.

Our only concern with the written notice is if it was agreed upon prior to the work being done by the two parties, which would make it a true part of the contract.

Group Members:

Connor Witt

John McSorley

Adam Campbell

Kevin Fanelli

Michael Byrne

Kevin Darcy

Case 14-2

ANDRUS v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND CITY OF OLYMPIA

Facts: Scott Andrus applied for a position with the City of Olympia. He received a verbal offer via phone call, which he accepted, but it was later revoked after his references were checked. Andrus sued the city for breach of contract. The court dismissed this, and he appealed.

Issue: Whether a non-specific job offer satisfies the terms of an enforceable contract under Common Law.

Rationale: The contract wasn't under reasonably certain terms because it didn't contain specific information on salary, starting date, etc. and was not followed by a written offer or request for acceptance.

Conclusion: This job offer does not have reasonably certain terms, and therefore is not an enforceable contract under Common Law.

We agree with this conclusion. The Promissory Estoppel is valid because the events took course over only one day, and he did not reject other offers, so this did not contribute to his detriment.

Mary Griffith

Megan Detrick

Sharlynne Solomon

Ray Soria

Susan Walker

Lucy v. Zehmer

Facts: Plaintiff J. C. Lucy had interest in Zehmer’s farm property for the past 8 years. Zehmer has always denied the sale of property under normal circumstances. After a night of drinking and jest, Lucy eventually got Zehmer to draw up a contract for the sale of the farm for $50,000. When Lucy later tried to enforce the contract, the trial court found for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed.

Issue: Whether a meeting of the minds is required for the formation of a contract.

Rational: There was no outward expression in the defendant’s intention. If his words and actions, judged by a reasonable standard, note an intention to accept, it is irrelevant what may be the real yet unexpressed state of his mind.

Conclusion: Appellate Court reversed and remanded in favor of the plaintiff, Lucy.

Group Consideration: We disagree with the courts decisions to uphold the contract because no true meeting of the minds existed in the presence of unreasonable intoxication.

Casey Wilkins

Dan Pena

Kyle Sullivan

Steven Chatwood

Alyssa Perry

Bridget O’Connor

Case 14-2 Andrus v. State, Department of Transportation, and City of Olympia

1. Andrus v. State Department of Transportation and City of Olympia (2005)

F:

• Scott Andrus applied for a position with the city of Olympia
• Tom Hill, and engineering supervisor with the city, called Andrus and told him, “You’re our number one choice, and I’m offering you the job”.
• Andrus responded, “great, and yes”.
• Andrus requested details via facsimile regarding the job and never received them.
• The city checked his references with the Department of Transportation, which proved unsatisfactory and they withdrew the offer.
• Andrus sued for the city breech of contract and the DOT for defamation.
• Trial court granted city’s request to dismiss the claims without trial.
• Andrus only appealed the breech of contract.

I:

• Whether a phone call lacking reasonably certain terms or subsequent written terms constitutes a contract.

R:

• An enforceable contract requires among other things, an offer with reasonably certain terms.
• The telephone “job offer” contained no starting date, salary, or benefit information.
• The “job offer” was to be followed with a written contract and request for acceptance.
• According to Restatement of Contracts § 33 (1979)

C:

• Under the common law, the terms of the offer must be definite and certain, all the material terms must be certain. These terms include the subject matter, quantity, quality, and parties.
• Affirmed in favor of the city.

2. Agree:

We agree with the court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s appeal, which states that the material terms of the offer were not definite and certain, such as date, salary, benefit information etc. Moreover, the written terms of the telephone “job offer” were never offered or accepted. W

We agree with this decision because the material details of the job offer were never discussed, and the offer is subject to change.

3. Stuart Hill, Chelsea Barclay, Jade Dacay, Michelle McDaniel, Kelsey Chase

DCB Constuction V. Central City Development Co.

Case Brief:

F- DCB entered a contract with an unamed lessee of Central City Development Co. to renovate there property. After the lessee did not pay DCB for the work done and got evicted for nonpayment of rent DCB sued CCD for the remaining payments from their lessee.

I- Whether DCB is entitled to unjust enrichment compensation for the work done to leesers building that has not been payed for.

R- The judge reasoned that becasue there was no evidence of fraud or improper conduct by CCD in relation towards the contracts signed by the three partys, and their dissclaimer of no liability of nonpayment for services rendered that CCD is not responsible for unjust enrichment compensation.

C- The Judge Criswell of the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that a lesser is not to be held liable for its lessee debt without their prior assent.

Group members opinion:

We agree because CCD made it clear to DCB that they would not be responsible for their lessees debt if they did not pay for the renovations. alternatively, If CCD had knowledge of the renovations but chose not to stipulate this clause then we believe that they should be held liable for their lessees debt.

Group members:

Christopher Kadera

Alexis Dominguez

Matt West

Philippe Gagnon

Peter Nguyen

Hayden Healy

Case 14-3: Osprey LLC v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co.

Group: Amy Liao, Megan Lockbaum, Tiffany Owen, Leanne Pratt, Nils Schive

Facts: Kelly-Moore faxed a renewal letter for a lease to Osprey LLC on the last day of their six-month notification period. Osprey refused to renew the lease, stating that they did not receive it and that regardless of receipt, use of facsimile was not an approved method of delivery.

Issue: Whether deviating from the approved means of delivery of a document is acceptable for renewal of a contract.

Rationale: Because use of a facsimile served the same function and purpose as the approved methods of delivery, it was sufficient to renew the lease.

Conclusion: If an unapproved means of delivery of a contract is functionally equivalent to an approved method, it may be acceptable.

We (more or less) agree that delivery by facsimile may be admissible if Kelly-Moore had notified Osprey that the fax would be sent; otherwise, the renewal period should have been long enough for them to submit the renewal via approved means.

War Dog Video

Veterans Day Surprise

Veterans Day

False imprisonment question:
Confining a person to a binded area without consent is the definition, but you can't consent to illegal acts?

Who would be the "owner" of this furniture

My parents just bought a brand new house in San Clemente. There was a interior designer hired to set up furniture in the house. When we purchased the house we had the option to by the house with the furniture or bring in our own and have the interior designer return the furniture. We chose to pay for the furniture (which included TV's, kitchen appliances, couches, etc...) and make it ours. However, recently we received a phone call from the furniture shop in LA wanting the furniture back because we found out the interior designer was a Con Artist and she never fulfilled her contract with the shop. We purchased the furniture in good faith and for the proper value. The designer had a agreement to rent the furniture with the option to sell. However, she was arrested and never payed the shop the money she owed. Before she was arrested we had already paid her the thousands for the furniture. At this point, does my dad own the furniture? Or would we have to return it?

Justice of the peace in interracial marriage case quits

Louisiana justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, whom we spoke about in class, personally resigned today. He said he needed to step down because the interracial couple was going to take him to court for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment and he "was going to lose."

The full article can be read here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html

Jury Award for Water Poisoning Contest

The family of Jennifer Strange, the Rancho Cardova, CA woman who died after consuming massive quantities of water in an ill-conceived radio station contest, has been awarded $$16,577,118 in damages.

Strange, 27, attempted to win a Wii gaming console for her three young children in KDND 107.9 “The End” radio station’s “Hold Your Wee for a Wii” contest. Strange, who came in second place and complained of stomach and headaches toward the end of the stunt, was found dead in her home by her mother hours after she returned home. At one point during the contest, a nurse called in to warn show hosts of the risk of death by water intoxication, but staff laughed off the concerns and referred to waivers signed by contestants- despite the well-known risk of death from “water poisoning.”

A jury found Entercom Communications to be negligent in death of Strange, and that the radio station ignored several indicators that the contest was ill-advised and potentially lethal.

[Baltimore Sun]

In-Class Assignment for Monday Nov. 2 2009

You have been asked to draft legislation addressing criminal and civil liability for individuals who fail to act when witnessing a crime such as occurred in Richmond CA. (See video - Richmond CA Rape)

Please address the following question(s):

1. Whether current State of California or Federal law provides any criminal or civil liability for failing to act. Fully describe the current law dealing with a failure to act.

2. What changes to current criminal or civil law do you propose for the failure to act?

3. What are the potential legal, social and other ramifications of your recommendations?

Each student group will provide a paper with appropriate research and recommendations. Recommended length is 4-5 pages. This assignment is due on Wednesday November 4, 2009. No late papers accepted.

Witnesses stand by as Richmond rape occurs

Washington State ruling on Voyeurism

Court rules voyeur cams legal

By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer, CNET News

In a ruling that could change fashions in Washington state, the Supreme Court there has ruled that "up-skirt cams" do not violate voyeurism laws.

The Washington Supreme Court judges said that two men who took surreptitious photos and video of women and girls using tiny cameras "engaged in disgusting and reprehensible behavior." However, the judges said they did not infringe on any reasonable expectations of privacy because the images were captured in public places.

"The voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit up-skirt photography in a public location," the judges wrote in an opinion issued earlier this month.

The use of cameras in public places has been an especially contentious issue in the digital age. Tiny cameras make it easy to take relatively high-quality pictures and video of people without their knowledge. Such images then can be easily posted on or distributed via the Web and seen by millions of people. X10, which sells miniscule cameras, markets its products with some of the most aggressive pop-ups on the Web, featuring scantily clad women with come-hither expressions.

The court said that while people could reasonably expect privacy in places such as a bedroom, bathroom or dressing room, they cannot while working at or visiting a public place such as a shopping mall.

"It is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person's body," the judges wrote.

Face recognition technology allows companies, cops and other organizations to capture people's images, store them in a database, and compare them with criminals and other files. In one of the most famous cases of mass biometric surveillance, Florida law enforcement captured the images of thousands of people who attended Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa, Fla., and compared their faces to pictures of known criminals. Civil libertarians blasted the move, calling it an unprecedented violation of privacy that netted just a few ticket scalpers.