By Carlos Miller
An Illinois man who enjoys secretly taking pictures of women walking to their cars in public parking lots was arrested for disorderly conduct last week.
Ronald Witt, 45, has been doing this for years because he was arrested for the same thing in 2006 although it is not clear if he was convicted for that arrest.
When police searched his home after his most recent arrest, they found more than 80 photos of various women walking through various parking lots.
How police get to search his home on a disorderly conduct charge is beyond me.
And while his behavior may seem creepy, anti-social and obsessive, is it illegal?
That might be up to a judge because the Illinois law states that “a person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace.”
So it boils down to whether a judge believes the act of taking pictures in public is acting in an “unreasonable manner” because it is evident he alarmed the women he photographed because he also followed them.
According to the local new report:
A woman called Deerfield police Oct. 6 to say she was being stalked. She said that three different times in recent days she had seen a man sitting in his car and watching her walk to her vehicle after work.
According to the police report, Witt followed the woman out of a parking lot and onto Lake Cook Road, and the woman feared for her safety. The next time Witt allegedly followed the woman, Deerfield officers followed him
When officers pulled him over, they found a camera and asked him what he was using it for.
“Something I should not have been doing,” he allegedly told the officer.
But did the woman have any expectation of privacy as they were walking to their cars in the public parking lots.
Of course they did not.
Popularity: 2% [?]
26 responses so far ↓
1 EdinMiami // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM
“unreasonable manner” will probably not be left up to the judge to decide (assuming he is entitled and gets a jury). As a, matter-of-fact, it is for the jury to decide whether his actions were unreasonable.
.02
2 Difster // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:58 AM
Seems like photography is not really the issue here. It’s stalking and annoying women.
3 Rob Molecule // Nov 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM
I don’t think you can get a jury trial on a disorderly conduct charge.
Photography is the issue because it is being given as a reason for the arrest. If the disorderly conduct statute can be so arbitrarily applied here, it will be just as easily applied to anyone else they want to charge with “illegal photography.” I don’t trust courts to only apply a law to stalkers and use their judgment not to bother everybody else.
4 MacK // Nov 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM
I’m with Difster on this.
I’m all for being free to take photos in public, anytime, any (public) place.
I’m not for stalking, and using a camera to assist in your stalking of women, children, or men.
Let me put it in context.
I’m in public taking photos of planes trains, and automobiles, a pretty girl walks by and I take a photo of her, no problem.
Now if I’m in public taking multiple photos of a woman walking through a parking lot, down the street, and on, I’m not exercising my rights , I’m violating her rights.
All that said I’m with Carlos on the how the hell did cops get a warrant to search this guys house?
5 EdinMiami // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Issue: Whether defendant under Illinois law is guilty of disorderly conduct which requires, knowingly doing an act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace, when defendant at different times and dates took pictures of another in public.
Given the charge, photography is not the issue. It’s just the incidental thing the guy was doing when he “disturbed” another. It would be interesting to know why they didn’t charge him with stalking; whether the threshold was too high or after hearing his story finding out there was an innocent mistake. /shrug
6 Santee // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I believe this could go either way. There is a case for both sides. Taking pictures of a pretty girl in a parking lot is not an issue and following her across the parking lot for another shot would be acceptable. Following her out of the parking lots in his vehicle would meet the definition of stalking, if he can not prove that was the direction he needed to go. It is strange he would be charged with disorderly conduct and not a Stalking charge. There are still lots of question to be answered in this incident. At least the police got a Search Warrant, abet there seemed to be scant probable cause to support the warrant.
7 Jay // Nov 3, 2009 at 1:33 PM
“Disturb” is a pretty wide net. From what we’ve read, what this guy did was possibly creepy, but legal. What if he was simply documenting the current fashions? And legally, if he’s on public or quasi-public property, he doesn’t need to explain his actions.
Put in another context, what if you are selling those world-famous widgets and a competitor sets up down the block. You realize that there’s something about his shop and clientele that would work well at another store of yours.
You decide to take pictures of his shop over the course of 2 weeks. He notices and calls the police and claims someone’s taking pictures of his shop and customers. Police charge you with a ‘disturbance.’
Yes, it would be the same thing.
This is because people are afraid of cameras AND people and police have no blessed clue about the law. Disorderly conduct is what is charged when the police are angry and want to ‘make someone pay’ or to perform a type of security theater so the uneducated public thinks their tax dollars are being used to protect them.
All BS.
8 NYCPhotorights // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM
“Disorderly Conduct” is the bogus catch-all charge police like to use when there is no specific law against a certain activity they don’t like.
What if the guy was a “street photographer” with published material? Besides who decides what is “disorderly”? People who listen to music that I don’t like “disturb” me – does this mean I can have them all arrested?
9 mepsipax // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Yes, Edin, photography is still the issue. Although he may have been stalking her, if taking pictures is why they stopped him in the first place then what is stopping them from applying this law to other situations.
What if you stare at someone too long? Where will it stop?
10 Rachael // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Everything is so wildly distorted and taken out of real-world context here.
It’s not an issue of the photographer’s rights being taken out of context. Have any of you taken a 21st century photojournalism class? It says he REPEATEDLY followed these women. Don’t try and act like it’s a nonchalant act, like staring too long.
These are the exact methods how attacks against women begin. And when women feel uncomfortable and report it, ignorant men try and defend the photographer. That is disgusting.
If you even read the article without half of the bias you wrote your comments with, you would see that he repeatedly followed these women. It’s not even slightly the same as listening to music that offends someone. This is direct infringement on someone’s security.
How would you feel if someone did this to your daughter? To your mother? Someone made them feel vulnerable, scared, alone? It’s not fair. Don’t get so caught up with the law that you’re willing to forgive this heinous violation of human rights to get more leeway in photography.
As a woman who has been attacked by someone acting in this nature, I find it sickening that the majority of these comments have more outrage invested in the fact that the man was reprimanded. Protecting women’s rights vs. protecting a shady photographer’s rights? Obviously this is not a big enough case to affect all photographer’s subsequent rights. Get off your high horse and see that.
11 AKAGoldfish // Nov 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM
@Rob Molecule: it’s a criminal charge, not a traffic ticket, he gets a jury trail if he wants one (although, if I were in his shoes I’m not sure I’d want one).
@MacK: “Now if I’m in public taking multiple photos of a woman walking through a parking lot, down the street, and on, I’m not exercising my rights , I’m violating her rights.”
That makes no sense, but it’s also not what the defendant in this case was doing. He wasn’t just talking multiple pictures of the same woman from the same spot (which is legal, and in no way violates her rights), but he was actively following several women as well as shooting them. That takes things to a different level than mare photography.
@NYCPhotorights: Most street photographers don’t stalk their subjects.
@mepsipax: the post says he was stopped because he was following the women who complained, not simply photographing her. That’s a pretty big difference.
12 Carlos Miller // Nov 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Rachael,
I agree with you about the need to protect women. But I also believe we need to stick to the law.
This guy has a history of photographing women in parking lots. Nothing else.
I think the guy is a shady creep. And I understand how women would feel threatened.
But where do we legally draw the line between someone who is stalking and someone who is expressing their First Amendment rights.
That will probably be up to the judge and jury.
13 EdinMiami // Nov 3, 2009 at 7:33 PM
wow Rachel be careful grinding that ax. you need to make sure it lasts a lifetime.
14 Pinandpuller // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Sounds like a case of 9mm beats 35mm.
15 Keith // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:55 PM
“Something I should not have been doing,” he allegedly told the officer.
If he felt he was doing something wrong, this entire thing is creepy.
16 EdinMiami // Nov 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM
OR
It could have been a question in response to being stopped by a police officer; since they tend not to stop people just to say hello, but the stopping doesn’t mean a crime has been committed nor does it create a crime.
Doing things that are “creepy” or in bad taste are still not against the law. yet.
17 mjk // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:26 PM
While it sounds like this guy was clearly in the wrong, it seems like if disorderly conduct (aka contempt of cop) is really the worst they can charge him with, then he’s not really a danger to anybody, just an annoyance. They should either charge him with a REAL crime (if they can) or let him go. Illinois must have some kind of anti-stalking law: if he was really has bad as the woman who reported him says, then shouldn’t he be charged under that?
18 akagoldfish // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM
If I recall Illinois’ anti-stalking law, you have to focus on one person for it to apply. Short-term stalking of a lot of different people wouldn’t count.
19 Mike H // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:49 AM
@akagoldfish
In the US, the pigs do not have to offer a trial if the offense is punishable for less than a maximum of 6 months in jail. Disorderly conduct is 3 months. It is the perfect charge for a police state trying to control people’s behavior. Also used for America’s bitches that are clearly favored in the courts. They bitch and the pigs make the men pay.
20 Mike H // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I meant they don’t have to offer a JURY trial.
21 Mike H // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:30 AM
The only ways to beat disorderly conduct, is either conviction on a higher charge or the mercy of the court. No jury allowed, totally up to some judge, good luck. And talk about a low threshold – someone only has to be offended or alarmed. Hell, women are alarmed if a man simply walks by them in an area with no other people. And if you try to fight it, they threaten to give you a trial penalty, maybe put you in jail for 3 months.
@akagoldfish
Fortunately, some states like Ohio don’t even consider a crime, in the sense that people do not have to declare it as having a criminal record.
22 Mike H // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I got 2 disorderly conducts in my over 55 years of life. The first because women were alarmed that I was wearing a towell out in the woods along a river and chased me on horseback, threatening my life, but only I was prosecuted. The second was a woman who saw me remove my swimsuit in the woods to relieve the runs. I have only contempt left for this country.
23 ILmom // Feb 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Cops stole my camera!!
I live in a quiet private neighborhood. One of my neighbors is a Cop. He and my hubby had verbal disagreement and to make a LONG story short, we are being watched like felons. We can’t walk the dog without a stop and frisk, they park outside our house for hours at a time. So, we began video taping what we considered a breach of privacy. AND took the cam on walks as a way to prove we weren’t doing anything wrong.
I got a little gutsy and would walk up to the car to record the license plate number. Next thing you know I was arrested and booked for “disorderly conduct”. They kept my camera and say they won’t give it back until the case closes!!! I can’t access evidence to prove my position!!
24 Rusty Carr // Apr 14, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Difster wrote: “Seems like photography is not really the issue here. It’s stalking and annoying women.” However, that’s not what he was charged with. They stuck him with some cheapo BS charge, “disorderly conduct” which is so big and broad it could mean looking out your window to see what the hell is going on!
25 David // Jun 8, 2010 at 7:43 PM
Maybe I’m misunderstanding but are you trying to say that this case rested solely upon the fact that he was taking pictures? They didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I would agree, but did this woman (and any other woman he might have behaved this way with) have a reasonable/legal expectation not to be stalked?
26 Rusty Carr // Jun 8, 2010 at 8:27 PM
“Maybe I’m misunderstanding…”
That appears to be the case.
Leave a Comment