Naked making coffee

[Dan]

A man was arrested because he was seen naked making coffee at 5:30AM by a woman and a kid trespassing on his property. That's disturbing on several level, the obvious one that he was arrested to begin with but also that the news seems to point out that if he knew they were there he'd be guilty. Also, you shouldn't have to say "I'm no exhibitionist" because someone saw you naked.

[Danee]

Only in the U.S of A.  Now, they did say, that the prosecution got the green light to proceed so there is something we don't know, perhaps, as they discussed the complaint before proceeding.  Still..based on what we DO know...this is really, realy sad. I mean REALLY sad. 
I will be interested in hearing how this goes..


Meanwhile, coffee au natural?  Of course!!  Is there any other way?

[pat9916]

Meanwhile, coffee au natural?  Of course!!  Is there any other way?

I know no other way! 

[randomer909]

That isn't right at all. Should the woman and her child not be more warned as they were invading his privacy by looking in? His property inside, he can do what he wants

[brandon]

The video mentions that the mother and child were cutting across the property. WTF were they doing trespassing at 5 in the morning?  I think the mother should have been charged with criminal trespass.

I feel kind of sorry for the police there, because when a member of the public makes a complaint, they have to take it seriously, even if the complaint is stupid.

I don't know if Virginia has a Peeping Tom statute, but if it does, perhaps Mr. Williamson should file a complaint against the woman.

According to this typical definition, he would have a legitimate complaint:

Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

   1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
   2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
   3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

What is a “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”?

“Reasonable expectation of privacy” is a term borrowed from constitutional law, which requires that the police obtain a search warrant if they wish to conduct a search in a place where you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.   There’s no exact definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy” but basically, private homes, dressing rooms, tanning booths, college dormitory rooms, and restrooms are the sorts of places protected.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/peeping-tom.aspx
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post shall be construed as legal advice.

[Nude_not_rude]

I agree that is sad. I hope he counter-claims for trespass against them and would love to see who wins.

[brandon]

I checked, and Virginia does have a statute against peeping:

§ 18.2-130. Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-130

[Dan]

I feel kind of sorry for the police there, because when a member of the public makes a complaint, they have to take it seriously, even if the complaint is stupid.

Actually, they aren't compelled by the law to respond to anything. In my experience, they move much faster for trivial stuff.

Hockey player turned crazy because his girlfriend is about to break with him, threaten to maim a group of 8 people, none who can physically oppose him = We're not moving
Girl thinks she saw UFOs in the sky = We'll be there in a few minutes

Yes, I speak from personal experience. The second event was a week after the first. And it wasn't isolated cases, I had to call the police at other times too.

Edit: Just to clarify, there was a UFO. In fact, there was about 20 of them I'd estimate, I saw them. I seriously doubt the objects were alien transportation devices of any kind. And I don't know what the police could do about it.

[Lisa2408]

This is possible only in the prudish United States.
In Germany, nothing would happen.
In my house, I can do whatever I want.
It is protected by the Basic Law in Germany

[brandon]

One of the posts on the Fox website mentioned that the woman's husband is a police officer.  If that is true, it explains what was going on here.

I don't think any Texas police officer would send his wife and child to trespass on someone's property at that hour because when it comes to nighttime trespassers, Texans tend to shoot first, ask questions later.

[mandywong]

I just read that article myself and was going to post it here :) I think it really sucks for the poor guy. Really, it was super early in the morning, who would suspect that a woman and her kid would pass by and see a naked guy. Somehow, I think if it were a lady who got caught instead of a guy, the situation would have been different. Would the trespasser just smile at her and hurry up while covering her kid's eyes?

[joeyn]

I just read that article myself and was going to post it here :) I think it really sucks for the poor guy. Really, it was super early in the morning, who would suspect that a woman and her kid would pass by and see a naked guy. Somehow, I think if it were a lady who got caught instead of a guy, the situation would have been different. Would the trespasser just smile at her and hurry up while covering her kid's eyes?

exactly!

joey

[Fitz1980]

Actually, they aren't compelled by the law to respond to anything. In my experience, they move much faster for trivial stuff.

That is true.  A few years back I was at a rave in Atlanta.  The venue was zoned as a multi-use space, meaning it could house private or public functions and it also did not have a liquor license.  The place had been raided twice by the Atlanta PD for BS violations of alcohol control laws and in both cases the charges were totally dismissed.  The venue, not having a liquor license, allowed people to bring their own booze (and the venue would sell mixers) or sometimes would do after hours parties with a beer keg or two, that was donated by the promoter and everyone could drink from until it was out.  Well the place got raided twice, for that kind of nonsense and both times the courts threw the arrests out saying the the venue was being legal.

Which brings me back to me.  I was at a rave where my car, and about 20 others, that were parked at the Arby's next door got robbed.  The robbers busted in the driver's side windows on those 20 cars, used the trunk release and grabbed anything/everything in the trunks of those cars.  In my case they hit the jack pot.  I had over $1,000 worth of stuff in my trunk, mostly tools and lighting gear as I had used both the previous night working with a party promoter friend of mine, and hadn't been back to my home to unload yet.  It took the cops almost an hour to show up for 20 robberies and God knows how many thousands worth of stuff.

On the flip side they had already raided the place twice for stuff that the courts ruled weren't even illegal but took an hour to show up for real crime.  I remember joking that night that if somebody called the cops and said that the place was serving alcohol to some 19/20 year olds or that someone had seen a topless woman or man in a thong through the front door (the venue also hosted fetish parties) the cops would have been there in 5 minutes. 

[Dan]

Update!

Here's the woman' version. They disagree on the hour but I don't think anyone is lying since he didn't see them he can't really know at what time they passed. Maybe he made coffee twice. Maybe they thought he was making coffee but he wasn't.

The disturbing part is that he risks 1 year of jail.

[Fitz1980]

Regardless of the time she was still trespassing on his property.