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
"Police blotter" is a weekly CNET News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law.

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.

More from News.com on this story's topics

Law enforcement

RSS feed

Mobile/wireless

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Video

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Legal

Create an email alert | RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
Louisiana, bedroom, Police Blotter, RadioShack Corp., tape

18 comments (Page 1 of 1)
WOW
by skeptik February 14, 2007 6:41 AM PST
56 years for a non-violent crime in which no one was physically hurt or even touched? 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.
Reply to this comment View reply
A Sticky Law
by arluthier February 14, 2007 8:12 AM PST
While what he did to, basically, his daughter. 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.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Hmmm
by volterwd February 14, 2007 9:01 AM PST
"Boudreaux said he was very sorry and blamed the situation on an addiction to both alcohol and painkillers" 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.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
So the guy is a perv ...
by DecliningUSDollar February 14, 2007 9:36 AM PST
So the guy is a perv, what guy isn't at some level? Maybe priests? ... oh wait, never mind. Maybe Mrs. Crabtree at school? ... oh wait, she's a perv too. 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.
Reply to this comment
Can we seperate "Family Issues?"
by leaglebob February 14, 2007 1:45 PM PST
If "the family" is the building block of our society, and we treasure and protect "family values," then it seems to me any photographing of non-consenting family members should be legal. Photographing the friends of the daughter was the crime here.
Reply to this comment View reply
Let him rot.
by fcekuahd February 15, 2007 11:41 AM PST
They're trying to compare the sentence for a single count of rape or murder with 14 counts video voyeurism. 14 counts of rape or murder would have landed him considerably more than 56 years.
Reply to this comment
Personally?
by sydala February 17, 2007 11:27 AM PST
I'm not having a difficult time with the 56 year sentence at all. Too bad it was overturned. And I believe that there is a HUGE difference between Paris Hilton and Brit Spears PURPOSELY flashing the paparazzi for publicity, and this young woman being what is essentially molested via video by someone she apparently considered to be her father. All without her prior consent or knowledge. 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.
Reply to this comment
Broken Laws ? What Laws ?
by Ragingdemo February 18, 2007 5:06 AM PST
Dear Folk's Now please I'm not advocating Lawlessness and Crime ! BUT Dear Lord hold the PHONE. Sit back a moment And just Imagine in your Mind the Total Number Of Police Ossifers & there respective departments along with there State Ordered brother's that darn the Stetsons that set atop the high & tight heads of the Troopers and there respective Barracks and the Court Room's that are home plate for every town and city in there county and state that arrest & fine then Jail and then the Prisons ALL FOR YOU AND I .Do you folks realize that not to long ago there were folks that had to wait sometimes 6 months before the State Marshal rolled around to there part of the state and yet it seem's the world still went round and round Yes Or No. Now you can bet your cell phone that if you even think about speeding your pulled to the side of the road and depending on where you are you could Be asked to Remove yourself from your car without moving your hands while walking backwards on one foot only to be told to get face down in the Filth because you decided to reach down and pick up your soda or CD But if your a Well connected Neo-Con Republicon Politician who just happens to be a CEO in your off time well your on easy street because you can live a Lawlesslife without a worry in the world why you can even have your Company Bid on Government contracts that to you or I would Be a conflict of interest if We were Goverment employees and had say a Parking lot across from City hall You can almost set your watch by how long it will take before your In the Court room So Now you can Own Oil well's and sell your Oil to Government agencys at a huge mark up without a care in the world Why you can just about do whatever you want As long as you belong to a Set group of Secret Societies i.e. the Tri-Latteral Boyz Or the Bilderbergers Or those Nice Boyz that make up the Council On Foreign Relations {CFR} and the list goes on .. But if your just a Lowly Human being with a job at Stop and shop YOUR DOG FOOD ... You can't do this Or that BUT we will allow you to Bust your Back working your life to the bone Just to keep your head above water AND IF YOU HIT A JACK POT WE WANT OURS FIRST. Yes People Police Blotter Is Not for the Super Rich and shameless But rather for Mr and Mrs Low to Mid income Nobody that lives on Nothing street . Oh You say you want to drive a car OK But first you have to Pay the Insurance Man then the Tax Man Then More Tax when you go to the Gasoline Guys that By the By was already paid With money that had already been taxed and RE-Taxed Oh you can'T Pay Opps We need to keys to your Home for Tax sales. Sorry . Oh Yea folks WE have a Police Blotter Alright Only count how many Wealthy well off Snot Nosed Son's Of Millionares You count What do you honestly think They DO NO WRONG ? And If your Name Is Bush well you Got Card Blance. You can do whatever you like THEN LIE THRU YOU FACE, then make up a new story while Backing out without having to see where you have already been because It matter's Not because He has an Expert who tell's Him Don't worry AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID TEN MINUTES AGO ... Oh Yea America We Got BLOTTER To Bad it's NOT the Kind You see pretty things with .
Reply to this comment
Commone Sense
by mpmacal February 18, 2007 12:03 PM PST
OK... putting aside moral extremes "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.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
Click Here
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
Sony BMG releases more DRM-free music
'Gears of War 2' to headline Xbox showcase
Video: Tuesday QuickCast, 2nd edition
Fisker plans second electric sedan, seeks funds
CSC settles with feds over kickback allegations
Most Popular Stories
Google brings Friend Connect to the masses
Welcome to the social mess?
Nintendo launches WiiWare with six games
XP update throws some for a loop
HP in talks to buy EDS
Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (-0.43%) -55.61 12,820.70
S&P 500 (-0.13%) -1.76 1,401.82
NASDAQ (0.02%) 0.44 2,488.93
CNET TECH (-0.22%) -3.89 1,741.92
  Symbol Lookup



advertisement
On BNET: Can beer be both "lite" and "craft"?
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: