Convicted Peeping Tom Sues to Recover Porn
[Guest post by DRJ]
From the “You Must be Kidding” criminal files comes this story about a lawsuit filed by a convicted peeping Tom to compel the police to return his $10,000 porn collection:
“A convicted peeping Tom is suing a California city to force the police to return his collection of more than 700 pornographic videos and magazines seized during a criminal investigation.
Dennis Saunders, who was jailed in 2002 for secretly videotaping a woman and a 17-year-old woman, sued the city of San Rafael in March after the police refused to return the porn, which his lawyer said was unrelated to Saunders’ criminal case. “There’s no legal authority for them to withhold this material,” said Saunders’ attorney, Jon Rankin. “There’s nothing dangerous about this stuff. You can buy it at any corner video store.”
Saunders was convicted in 2002 of more than 40 misdemeanors for secretly taping a 45-year-old woman and 17-year-old woman in their bedrooms and bathrooms inside their San Rafael apartment complex. He was sentenced to more than eight years in jail, but released in August after time off for good behavior, Rankin said. Saunders has a long history of prior peeping Tom convictions.
Thomas Bertrand, the lawyer who is representing San Rafael, did not return calls for comment Tuesday. Bertrand told the Marin Independent Journal that the city was seeking guidance from a judge on whether it would be “lawful or appropriate” to return the material to Saunders. “If the court orders us to give it back to him, we will give it back to him,” Bertrand said.”
Saunders is not asking for any tapes that contained photos of his victims but he is seeking punitive damages for the police department’s refusal to return his porn.
The article concludes with opinions from unnamed criminal defense attorneys that Saunders should get his porn back under California law “as long as the videos and magazines are legal to possess and are not evidence in a pending case.” I’ll defer to the experts on California law but I think this is bizarre.
It’s not stated whether Saunders is classified as a sex offender subject to post-release supervision. If he is, page 31 of this report suggests that the terms of probation or parole in most California counties prohibit a sex offender from “using pornography or erotica,” which would make this lawsuit a bad idea.
If Saunders is not classified as a sex offender and/or is not subject to supervision or restrictions, … I still think this lawsuit is a bad idea.
— DRJ
Sigh, DRJ. If these _____ had a sense of shame, a sense of proportion, or any sense at all, they would not be criminals. The sad thing is that there is a more than colorable First Amendment implication which will preclude any judge from laughing the case out of court. (As for his damages, here’s a chance for his victims to file a third-party counterclaim.)
nk (0c0cd0) — 9/10/2007 @ 5:15 pmI’d have to say his suing for damages is idiotic, but the return of his ‘property’ is warranted if not covered by any law. Yes it’s porn and all, but unless it would be criminal for him to have it, it is his porn. no?
Lord Nazh© (899dce) — 9/10/2007 @ 6:45 pmI agree it’s his and he has a right to it. It just seems like a dumb move … but, then again, I haven’t seen his collection. Maybe it’s worth the trouble.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:29 pmA few years ago, a family got lost in Montecito while trying to find the Christian college their son attends… they pull into a driveway to turn around and see what looks to be a body of a woman. They cal 911 and it turns out to be an “extremely life-like” $10,000 sex doll the ex- husband who was living in the house had left behind for the angry ex wife to find.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 9/10/2007 @ 7:53 pmNice. One minute everything’s Jesus and then…
Anyway, the ex at least had the good sense not to go public and demand his doll be returned (in spanking new condition) *sorry*
Another example of stupid frivolous lawsuits this pervert peeping tom should go blind and not one single guide dog would want to lead him
krazy kagu (3e8790) — 9/11/2007 @ 7:23 am@krazy kagu:
Go study the constitution and its amendments. We have a right against illegal search and seizure of our property. The thing about freedom is that everybody must be free, not just the people you like. The property was initially seized to search for illegal material. Now that the case is over and he’s paid his debt to society as the legal system has seen fit, he is entitled to all his property. Including his legal porn. Even if you don’t like him.
As for damages? That’s for the court to decide. I doubt he’ll get anything, but he should at least get lawyer’s fees for having to fight to get his own legal property returned like it’s supposed to be. The law enforcement officers that are withholding it from him are sadly ignorant of the law they’re supposed to be upholding.
Anonymous (86f787) — 9/11/2007 @ 11:28 amMaybe he had some original Tracy Lords porno in there?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/11/2007 @ 6:07 pm