Man had bathroom cameras

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
By BETTY ADAMS

from the Morning Sentinel





FARMINGDALE -- State and federal authorities arrested a Farmingdale man Thursday on charges of violating the privacy of his family members by videotaping them without their knowlege while they were using the toilet.John Harrison, 50, was taken to Kennebec County jail and charged with two misdemeanors: violation of privacy and possession of sexually explicit materials. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail.
Maine State Police began investigating Harrison earlier this week when a motorist with a wireless video monitor in his vehicle drove through Farmingdale and saw an apparently live broadcast of a person using a toilet. The motorist reported the incident to state police.
Armed with a similar monitor, police cruised Maine Avenue, catching glimpses being broadcast from the inside of a home and pinpointing the address.
They first talked to Harrison on Tuesday, who told them he had been using wireless cameras to record bathroom use, and that his family, including children who range in age from 9 to adult, were unaware of the recordings.
Harrison's wife, contacted at work, told police she knew there was a camera in the bathroom but didn't know it was recording.
"Mr. Harrison showed me two VCRs in two rooms with two separate receivers for the cameras," wrote Detective Sgt. Glenn Lang of the Maine State Police in an affidavit submitted to obtain a search warrant. "Mr. Harrison said the cameras were being recorded all day to the VCRs. He said he had recorded videos of his family members in the bathroom, but would fast forward through that section of the videotapes."
Harrison told police he also had a camera in the bedroom. It was unclear whose bedroom he was referring to.
A day later, police searched the property, seizing computer equipment, digital cameras, computer records, and other items.
"We have a mountain of material to go through," Lang said.
Lang, who is supervisor of the computer crimes unit, said the case is particularly unusual.
"We've had some people tell us while they've been driving down the road, they have seen images from inside a bathroom," he said. "And we've had people record their kids in the bathroom, but we've never had a combination of both." He said the wireless transmitter sent the images outside.
"(Harrison) didn't have any idea it had the range it has," Lang said.
Lang said the investigation was done in cooperation with the Secret Service, and agent Manning Jetted was at the scene Thursday when Harrison was arrested.
State charges have been filed, and federal charges could be filed, Lang said.
He also said investigators called the Department of Health and Human Services because of the children in the home. The children were still in the home on Thursday, Lang said.
District Attorney Evert Fowle said his office requested bail be set at $25,000 worth of property or $12,500 in cash.
If Harrison is released on bail, he is banned from possession of sexually explicit materials and from contact with anyone on the tapes.
Lang said the investigation is continuing.
 

Josephine

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
7
18
Oh! That's just creepy!!!
I'm paranoid about using public washrooms anyway...but now...bring on the cathatar!!
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Uh, Josephine. . .it was in his house. So public fear is kinds pointless.

This is a weird man doing weird things in his family home - and there was no real mention of this being used for sexual purposes - my guess (and it's only a guess) would be that this is a controlling, domineering son-of-a-bitch who tyrannized his home.

But of course jumping to conclusions is kind of the Pilates of this community.

Pangloss

Oh, and it's "catheter."
 

Josephine

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
7
18
Uh, Josephine. . .it was in his house. So public fear is kinds pointless.

This is a weird man doing weird things in his family home - and there was no real mention of this being used for sexual purposes - my guess (and it's only a guess) would be that this is a controlling, domineering son-of-a-bitch who tyrannized his home.

But of course jumping to conclusions is kind of the Pilates of this community.

Pangloss

Oh, and it's "catheter."


Opps..sorry.

Hey, thanks for the spelling lesson!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: eh1eh

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Oh! That's just creepy!!!
I'm paranoid about using public washrooms anyway...but now...bring on the cathatar!!

I'm quoting the above to point out that any reasonable reading would conclude that there was a sexual aspect implied - hence the words "creepy" and "paranoid." Or is your meaning that obscure that we must read the message, and then only rely on your exegesis?

That would prove cumbersome.

I don't know about jumping to "cunclusions" - I suspect I'd hurt myself or another.

Pangloss
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
How is this sexually explicit again? Maybe the little brats have a habit of doing drugs (yes kids as young as nine use drugs) and he's got them under survaillance for that reason.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
How is this sexually explicit again? Maybe the little brats have a habit of doing drugs (yes kids as young as nine use drugs) and he's got them under survaillance for that reason.
Well...it still seems a bit...over the top. The article may not talk about sexually explicit...but it also does not talk about nine year old "brats" using drugs.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
How is this sexually explicit again? Maybe the little brats have a habit of doing drugs (yes kids as young as nine use drugs) and he's got them under survaillance for that reason.

One could assume that, since he was charged with possession of sexually explicit materials, that some of the images he recorded were, indeed, sexually explicit.
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
How is this sexually explicit again? Maybe the little brats have a habit of doing drugs (yes kids as young as nine use drugs) and he's got them under survaillance for that reason.

hmmm sorry Zzarchov, but I think that's quite a stretch. Even if this was actually the case, the man would still be under obligation to turn the cameras OFF when guests were in the washroom... and gawd help us all if we are now having to resort to filming our children in the bathroom to keep them off drugs... :-?
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
Does the family member have reasonable expectations of privacy while in the washroom?

My question is this: If he was trying to prevent drug use why not simply remove the door? He used a camera because he is ashamed of what he is doing and knows it's wrong. Which means it's reasonable to jump to the conclusion that he received some sort of gratification from this type of voyeurism.
 
Last edited:

Josephine

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
7
18
Does the family members have reasonable expectations of privacy while in the washroom?

My question is this: If he was trying to prevent drug use why not simply remove the door? He used a camera because he is ashamed of what he is doing and knows it's wrong. Which means it's reasonable to jump to the conclusion that he received some sort of gratification from this type of voyeurism.


I think the family is reasonable to expect privacy in the washroom. I just couldn't imagine finding out that a family member has been watching you like that. How could you trust them?

Drugs don't sound like an issue here.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Everyone here is extrapolating beyond the evidence.

It is just as likely that he is a domineering, controlling son-of-a-bitch as he is a pervert. Since the police did not charge him with child porn, pedophilia is so far not in the picture.

Go back to the article and read what is actually there.

We weren't there, the article is brief and far from conclusive. Only more evidence would justify more conjecture.

Pangloss
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
what I read was
If Harrison is released on bail, he is banned from possession of sexually explicit materials and from contact with anyone on the tapes.

I wonder why they'd ban him from contact with his own children? I wonder why they'd ban sexually explicit material if he was only being domineering?
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Gee, Twila, do prosecutors (and judges up for election) ever pander to the general public and make sweeping bans from time to time? Naah, couldn't possibly happen.

Just something to think about.

Bail conditions can be about anything, are usually sweeping and all-inclusive, and often relate very little to the charges being pressed.

But, hey - who am I to tell you to not overreact?

Pangloss
 
Last edited:

snfu73

disturber of the peace
Gee, Twila, do prosecutors (and judges up for election) ever pander to the general public and make sweeping bans from time to time? Naah, couldn't possibly happen.

Just something to think about.

Bail conditions can be about anything, are usually sweeping and all-inclusive, and often relate very little to the charges being pressed.

But, hey - who am I to tell you to not overreact?

Pangloss
Or, there really COULD be sexual abuse issues here. Afterall, we are debating over a very short article that doesn't cover EVERYTHING I am sure.

I also think you are being over cynical of the judicial system.