Connecticut 2019 Regular Session

Connecticut Senate Bill SB01100

Introduced
3/20/19  
Refer
3/20/19  
Refer
3/20/19  
Report Pass
4/8/19  
Refer
4/18/19  
Refer
4/18/19  
Report Pass
4/25/19  
Report Pass
4/25/19  
Engrossed
5/21/19  
Engrossed
5/21/19  
Report Pass
5/22/19  
Report Pass
5/22/19  
Chaptered
6/5/19  
Enrolled
6/6/19  
Enrolled
6/6/19  

Caption

An Act Concerning "upskirting".

Impact

The legislation will impact the state’s approach to voyeurism laws, specifically targeting invasive behaviors that violate personal privacy rights. By clearly defining 'upskirting' as a criminal act, the bill enhances legal protections for individuals, particularly in public spaces where they may believe they are not being recorded or observed. This change aims to strengthen the enforcement of privacy protections and awareness regarding consent in public and private settings.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 1100, focusing on the issue of 'upskirting', seeks to amend existing laws on voyeurism by redefining the parameters under which such actions are considered criminal offenses. The bill explicitly makes it illegal to photograph, video, or record individuals without their consent in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially in relation to sensitive areas such as the genitals. It also introduces penalties classified as class D and C felonies based on the offense's severity and the offender's history.

Sentiment

The discussion around SB 1100 revealed a generally supportive sentiment towards the need for improved privacy laws. Advocates of the bill emphasized the importance of safeguarding individuals from intrusive actions that could lead to psychological harm or exploitation. However, concerns were raised about the adequacy of law enforcement's ability to effectively prosecute such offenses, leading to a nuanced debate about the bill's implementation and efficacy in real-world scenarios.

Contention

Notable points of contention arose regarding the definitions set forth in the bill, particularly surrounding the terms 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and the enforcement challenges that might arise. Critics pointed out potential ambiguities that could complicate legal proceedings, as well as concerns about how these laws might interplay with existing privacy laws. The classification of offenses and the appropriate legal recourse for victims were also subjects of rigorous debate during the legislative discussions.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.