February 14, 2007 4:00 AM PST
Police blotter: Wireless voyeur appeals 56-year term
- Related Stories
-
Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos
February 9, 2007 -
Police blotter: Texas student guilty in SSN hack
February 2, 2007 -
Police blotter: Heirs sue over will-making software
January 24, 2007 -
Police blotter: Antispam activist fights lawsuit
January 19, 2007 -
Police blotter: Detecting computer-generated porn?
January 3, 2007 -
Police blotter: Web at heart of ecoterror lawsuit
December 27, 2006 -
Police blotter: Google searches nab wireless hacker
December 20, 2006 -
Police blotter: Fired over 'Wicked Weasel' photo
December 8, 2006 -
Police blotter: Child porn in Web cache OK
November 24, 2006 -
Police blotter: Florida judges target Net sex
November 17, 2006 -
Police blotter: Prison inmate wants personal ad replies
November 10, 2006 -
Police blotter: Child porn blamed on computer virus
November 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Web cookies become defendant's alibi
October 27, 2006 -
Police blotter: Flap over nude photos of Cameron Diaz
October 20, 2006 -
Police blotter: Prosecutors want reporters' hard drives
October 13, 2006 -
Police blotter: Sex offender demands Playboy on PC
October 6, 2006 -
Police blotter: When can cops seize your computer?
September 29, 2006 -
Police blotter: Alleged al-Qaida hacker goes to court
September 22, 2006 -
Police blotter: Cops raid Usenet provider over porn
September 8, 2006 -
Police blotter: Judge OKs text message use in drug case
September 1, 2006 -
Police blotter: Trojan horse leads to porn convictions
August 25, 2006
What: Video voyeur who used 2.4GHz wireless camera to watch his 18-year-old stepdaughter appeals his sentence of 56 years in prison.
When: A Louisiana state appeals court (second circuit) rules on December 13.
Outcome: Court says 56 years in prison is "constitutionally excessive."
What happened, according to court documents:
In early 2005, James Boudreaux was sharing a mobile home with his son and his 18-year-old stepdaughter, with whom he'd been living almost without interruption since she was 11 years old.
What the stepdaughter did not know is that Boudreaux had installed a RadioShack 2.4GHz wireless camera in the entertainment center in her bedroom. The diminutive color cameras sell for $20 on RadioShack's Web site, can run on batteries or an AC adapter, and are part of a $100 surveillance system that includes video-out capability on the base station.
Boudreaux took advantage of that function by recording his stepdaughter for about four months, sometimes while she was dressing and undressing, and at times while she was completely nude. And, in the words of the court: "Other tapes allegedly showed some of the victim's young female friends partially or completely naked, and one tape purportedly depicted defendant masturbating while holding a pair of the victim's underpants up to his face."
His stepdaughter, who is not named in the court opinion, found out what was going on when she knocked on Boudreaux's door to give him some cigarettes she purchased on his behalf. Her stepfather was standing naked in front of the television. He quickly stopped the tape he was watching and jumped into bed--but not before she spotted what was on the screen.
That led her to enter his bedroom later, when he was gone, and discover videotapes depicting her and several friends in various stages of undress. She disconnected the camera installed in her bedroom. She then confronted Boudreaux, who replied that it was his trailer and he could film whatever he wanted.
Boudreaux kicked her out of the home a few months later, at which time the stepdaughter asked the sheriff's office for help in retrieving her personal items. She mentioned the video camera and tapes, which led to a search warrant and Boudreaux being arrested.
Tammy Philley, a female sergeant in Louisiana's Ouachita Parish, viewed the tapes and found that seven different partially nude or fully nude young women had been recorded. Philley noted that there was no evidence that Boudreaux had threatened any of the women he recorded or had tried to convince them not to press charges.
Boudreaux said he was very sorry and blamed the situation on an addiction to both alcohol and painkillers. His adult criminal record included urinating in public (1980), driving while intoxicated (1983), bringing marijuana into a jail when serving his DWI time (1984), illegal use of weapons (1989), simple battery (1990), attempted possession of cocaine (1992) and another DWI (1999).
The problem for Boudreaux is that Louisiana had made "video voyeurism" a serious crime as a result of a case involving Susan Wilson, who found that she had scant legal recourse when a neighbor implanted a camera in her home. Wilson's case became mildly famous and resulted in a 2002 made-for-TV movie.
The Louisiana law outlaws any lewd, nonconsensual "observing, viewing, photographing, filming or videotaping" of "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." Penalties are prison sentences of up to five years without parole or probation. (Read literally, photographs of certain body parts belonging to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears might be deemed unlawful.)
Boudreaux pleaded guilty to 14 counts of video voyeurism and was sentenced to four years of hard labor for each count--a total of 56 years in prison. He would also have to register as a sex offender, according to state law.
That is an unusually long sentence. Federal statistics show that the average total incarceration time imposed by state courts for murder is 18 years; rape is 8 years; and robbery is about 6.5 years.
Boudreaux appealed his sentence as excessive, and the appeals court agreed. In mid-December, the appeals court sent it back down to the trial judge for resentencing.
Excerpt from the appeals court's opinion on the Boudreaux case (PDF):
Defendant was 42 years old at the time of sentencing. His criminal history consists primarily of drug- and alcohol-related offenses. In fact, his conviction in 1984 of bringing marijuana into a correctional facility occurred while he was serving time on the weekends for DWI. Defendant's last violent offense was a conviction for simple battery in 1990, which arose out of an argument with his sister.
Any sentence for video voyeurism under La. R.S. 14:283B(3) must be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. As a practical matter, 14 four-year terms without benefit of parole to be served consecutively is a life sentence. Even as a second felony offender, defendant would have been subject to a fixed term.
Although defendant's video voyeurism does not involve any physical contact or violence, it is nonetheless a reprehensible violation of a personal nature. At 18 years old, the victim may not legally have been a minor, but she was a young and callow girl. Defendant perpetrated the crime against someone he had essentially raised as a daughter.
According to the victim, her mother and defendant began dating when she was 8 years old and married when she was 11. After the parties separated in April of 2003, the victim lived with her mother for approximately four months, then moved in with defendant. She lived with defendant and defendant's son until June 2005, when defendant ordered her to leave.
The experience has had, and undoubtedly will continue to have, a significant effect on the victim. However, defendant's activities all formed a part of a single scheme or plan, something that the trial court did not adequately address at sentencing.
While it is within the trial court's discretion to impose sentences consecutively in an appropriate "scheme or plan" case, in the instant matter, the imposition of a 56-year term without parole is out of proportion to the offense and appears to impose a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering.
For the reasons set forth above, defendant's sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
See more CNET content tagged:
Louisiana,
bedroom,
Police Blotter,
RadioShack Corp.,
tape
Sex offender - yes. Jail time - yes. But lets get real. Give then penalties outlined, he'd have been better off killing her when she walked in on him. And that obviously points to a flawed penalty system. Any system which makes murdering the witness a better proposition than facing the consequences invites abuse.
But... that law seems a bit vague. "observing, viewing" photos... if they nailed me for everytime or instance I have seen those stupid Britney, Paris, or every other actress that has had an "accident" I would have had multiple life sentences.
I hope this law isnt too vague to be upholdable (is that a word?) long term. I assume it was meant to cover people viewing illegally filmed/photographed content.
I hate it when people try to make excuses for sick freaks like the guy in this article with lame arguments like this one.
Of course... now-a-days it's never the perp's fault it's always something else...
The time is excessive... but he should keep that sentence until he actually feels remorse and comes clean... not blaming it on his addictions.
Foley is a classic recent example of this. He's found to have had contact or email or whathaveyou with pages that was less than appropriate (to put it nicely). So what does he do? Talk a lot about how badly he feels that he may have scarred said child/pages for life, and about his ensuing guilt over the matter? Ummm... Not so much.
He of course, goes to rehab. (And btw, just in case you weren't aware of this salient little point, we, the taxpayers, PAID for said rehab. Yes indeedy.) Because we all know that rehab for substance abuse is THE answer to ending the urge to boff underage boys and girls, Right?
(Ok, so actually the only proven cure for pedophilia is shotgun therapy. Or permanent jailtime. Because there is no effective treatment for sickos who want to DO your children. But I hate to confuse people with facts about recidivism when it seems that everyone is ever so happy to obfuscate with warm fuzzies about 28 days in a plush de-tox program. Rehab is the most POPULAR answer of 2006 - just ask all of the pedophiles who got caught last year. Actual or chemical castration are the best alternatives to death and permanent imprisonment. Certainly, chemical castration is the most humane, HOWEVER, it is extremely difficult for parole and probation officers to keep up with offenders to make certain they are compliant with their shots).
But back to Folowy. After rehab, we know he's going to want to get straight to that step in AA where you apologize to everyone you've wronged. Including any pages he victimized and their families, right? And I mean, since the offense was public, it would only stand to reason that it should be a REALLY PUBLIC apology... Oh. He DID make a statement.
Huh. Didn't really linger on any teenagers he may have wronged/harmed. What was that? Oh. He wants us to feel sorry for him because HE'S a victim? Oh, I see. Yes. Its all about him. Apparently HE was the VICTIM of molestation as a child. A Catholic priest. You don't say. What a shocker. There's a new one.
And he never really says anything else about HIS OWN victim, just how difficult it was for HIM as a child. Now, I MIGHT have cared about that had he not chosen to put other people's children through the same treatment. As it is, I could care less. And its no excuse.
Millions of children who are abused grow up to help others, not to hurt them. And millions of alcoholics ruin their livers, but they don't go into their daughter's bedroom at night, nor do they rig spy cameras in their stepdaughter's room and masturbate to peep shows of her and her friends in the buff.
Foley is a classic recent example of this. He's found to have had contact or email or whathaveyou with pages that was less than appropriate (to put it nicely). So what does he do? Talk a lot about how badly he feels that he may have scarred said child/pages for life, and about his ensuing guilt over the matter? Ummm... Not so much.
He of course, goes to rehab. (And btw, just in case you weren't aware of this salient little point, we, the taxpayers, PAID for said rehab. Yes indeedy.) Because we all know that rehab for substance abuse is THE answer to ending the urge to boff underage boys and girls, Right?
(Ok, so actually the only proven cure for pedophilia is shotgun therapy. Or permanent jailtime. Because there is no effective treatment for sickos who want to DO your children. But I hate to confuse people with facts about recidivism when it seems that everyone is ever so happy to obfuscate with warm fuzzies about 28 days in a plush de-tox program. Rehab is the most POPULAR answer of 2006 - just ask all of the pedophiles who got caught last year. Actual or chemical castration are the best alternatives to death and permanent imprisonment. Certainly, chemical castration is the most humane, HOWEVER, it is extremely difficult for parole and probation officers to keep up with offenders to make certain they are compliant with their shots).
But back to Folowy. After rehab, we know he's going to want to get straight to that step in AA where you apologize to everyone you've wronged. Including any pages he victimized and their families, right? And I mean, since the offense was public, it would only stand to reason that it should be a REALLY PUBLIC apology... Oh. He DID make a statement.
Huh. Didn't really linger on any teenagers he may have wronged/harmed. What was that? Oh. He wants us to feel sorry for him because HE'S a victim? Oh, I see. Yes. Its all about him. Apparently HE was the VICTIM of molestation as a child. A Catholic priest. You don't say. What a shocker. There's a new one.
And he never really says anything else about HIS OWN victim, just how difficult it was for HIM as a child. Now, I MIGHT have cared about that had he not chosen to put other people's children through the same treatment. As it is, I could care less. And its no excuse.
Millions of children who are abused grow up to help others, not to hurt them. And millions of alcoholics ruin their livers, but they don't go into their daughter's bedroom at night, nor do they rig spy cameras in their stepdaughter's room and masturbate to peep shows of her and her friends in the buff.
There are murderers, rapists, car jackers, hard core drug dealers, robbers, wife beaters, child abusers, dead beat dads, etc. who serve far less time.
Get the guy out of jail if he is there already, put him in counseling and make him do 1000 hours of community service.
Photographing the friends of the daughter was the crime here.
I suppose if a husband pulls out a shotgun and blasts his wife into oblivion, that fits under the heading of "family values" as well as long as he doesn't off his neighbor's wife in the process?
Please. Give me a break.
She evidently considered it to be enough of a familial/father-daughter relationship that she chose to live with him rather than her mother after he and her mother divorced. But he apparently didn't want to have anything to do with HER once he couldn't use her and her friends as his own private porn collection. What a huge betrayal of trust, and what a raw deal in life for this young woman so far. The scumbag deserves to rot in jail for fift-six years.
Also, this article does not say if charges were pressed against him for videoing any of the other girls? Were any of those girls under 18 years of age? If none of those charges were brought, and the court is now forced to reduce his jail time, prosecutors should go back and bring charges for the offenses at this time to ensure that he gets as much time as possible.
The sick freak. Too bad the moron lives in a mobile home and almost certainly doesn't have any money. This young lady deserves the proceeds from a civil judgement, but he wouldn't have anything to pay out.
"Family Values above all..."
or
"She was asking for it. Give him a slap and call it a day".
There is some common sense principles at work here.
1. He invaded the privacy of a young woman. (offensive but...)
2. That young woman was raised as his daughter. (from offensive to abusive and dangerous.)
3. The young girl left (kicked out), because he wanted to continue the abuse. For the smart guy claiming that teens flash anyway - Please tak a moment... Imagine being a high school senior having that conversation with Dad.... (No shame. No remorse). Still feel the same way?
I say throw the book at him. I agree with the higher court that it must be the "Book", i.e. established sentencing, and not some special punishment because for some reason, murder is less offensive to the judge than child abuse.
Following established guidelines, he'll be in prison for the next 15 years or so. That sounds about right.