Man had bathroom cameras


sanctus
#1
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
#2
Oh! That's just creepy!!!
I'm paranoid about using public washrooms anyway...but now...bring on the cathatar!!
 
Pangloss
#3
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
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

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!!!
 
Josephine
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by JosephineView Post

Opps..sorry.

Hey, thanks for the spelling lesson!!!


Who said anything about this being used for sexual purposes? Certainly not me.
I do hate when people jump to cunclusion as well.
 
Pangloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by JosephineView Post

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
 
snfu73
#7
What would REALLY impress me is if the guy was spanish, was drunk, and drove around on a motorized bed that he operated with his mouth! That would be...amazing!
 
Nuggler
#8
Where does one purchase those cameras?

 
Zzarchov
#9
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
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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.
 
Zan
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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
#13
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 by Twila; May 16th, 2007 at 06:08 PM..
 
Josephine
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

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.
 
TenPenny
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

Does the family member have reasonable expectations of privacy while in the washroom?

In a word, yes.
 
Twila
#16
So far we're in agreement. The guy is a pedophile
 
Pangloss
#17
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
#18
what I read was
Quote:

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
#19
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 by Pangloss; May 16th, 2007 at 09:44 PM..Reason: Spelled Twila's name wrong.
 
snfu73
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

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.
 
Pangloss
#21
Cynical of the judicial system? No.

Aware of the very human temptation to pander to the public? Sure.

Splitting hairs: I'll leave that to you.

This is getting boring.

Pangloss
 
able
#22
No matter how you approach it, cameras in the bathroom doesn't smell the best. Imagine how guests who might have used the bathroom are feeling right now. The women would be in a frenzy, while the guys are thinking "did I hit the toilet seat"?
 
Twila
#23
Quote:

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.

Your right. They're suppose to do right by the children.

But either way the guy is an ***. Wonder what the mom was doing? or wasn't doing, as the case maybe
 
Twila
#24
Quote:

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?

is it over reacting or stirring the pot.....we'll probably never know...besides why ruin the fun?
 
snfu73
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

what I read was


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?

I agree...that does raise some suspicions...although, as the article says, the investigation is still continuing. Maybe those conditions were placed on until they can for sure rule out or rule in the idea of pedophelia or sexually related indiscretions. Who knows.
 
snfu73
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

Cynical of the judicial system? No.

Aware of the very human temptation to pander to the public? Sure.

Splitting hairs: I'll leave that to you.

This is getting boring.

Pangloss

If it's getting boring...why do you bother? We hate to bore you. Feel free to move to another topic.
 
snfu73
#27
Bathroom video camera lands father man in jail

May 11, 2007
FARMINGDALE, Maine --A Farmingdale man accused of invading his children's privacy by installing a video camera in their bathroom was arrested after a wireless signal carrying the images was picked up by a passing motorist.
Police were alerted by a motorist who reported seeing a child using the bathroom over his vehicle's personal wireless back-up signal.
John Harrison, 50, was charged Thursday with two misdemeanor counts of violation of privacy and possession of sexually explicit materials, police said.
A state police investigator reported finding numerous videotaped images of Harrison's wife and three minor children, ages 9 through 15, using the bathroom. The images were broadcast by wireless cameras to monitors in another room in the house, police said.
Harrison's wife told police she knew there was a camera in the bathroom but didn't know it was recording. Police are currently reviewing material from digital cameras, recorders and computers seized from the home.
"We have a mountain of material to go through," said State Police Detective Sgt. Glenn Lang, supervisor of the computer crimes task force.
Harrison was scheduled to make an initial court appearance via video link. Prosecutors asked for bail to be set at $25,000 worth of property or $12,500 in cash.
 
snfu73
#28
More...complete with video that sheds a little more light on the story...

www.wmtw.com/news/13301917/de...=port&psp=news (external - login to view)
 
Twila
#29
hmmm, seems his wife had an affair on him 9 yrs ago so THAT'S why he needed to put a camera in the kids washroom.

Quote:

Harrison's wife told police she knew there was a camera in the bathroom but didn't know it was recording.

So...why would you put the camera in there if you weren't going to record anything? Makes me think the wife doesn't want to know why the husband is video taping.
 
snfu73
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

hmmm, seems his wife had an affair on him 9 yrs ago so THAT'S why he needed to put a camera in the kids washroom.


So...why would you put the camera in there if you weren't going to record anything? Makes me think the wife doesn't want to know why the husband is video taping.

This is going to sound...bad...but...did you see the shirt that he had on? Not that he should be judged on that t-shirt....but...well...who knows.
 

Similar Threads

8
Edmonton Bathroom Rapist
by Hank C | Apr 23rd, 2006
5
How toxic is your bathroom?
by mrmom2 | Oct 25th, 2005
27
Writing in bathroom stalls!
by peapod | Oct 20th, 2005
0
Cameras, Cameras, Everywhere!
by jjw1965 | Sep 26th, 2005
3
Digital Cameras
by Andem | Apr 15th, 2005
no new posts