Interference with privacy

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether use of phone camera is an aperture with the meaning of interference with privacy?    

Defendant pleaded guilty to interference with privacy.  Later, he brought a motion to withdraw his plea on the grounds that it was invalid because the factual basis for the plea did not support the elements needed to support the conviction.  Defendant’s motion was denied.  He appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that use of the victim’s cell phone camera to take pictures and obtain a view of her intimate parts constituted the use of an aperture within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §609.746, subd. 1(b).  Affirmed.

State v. McReynolds, A20-1435, Dakota County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

By |2021-09-14T01:22:31+00:00September 14th, 2021|Victories/Case Law Updates|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment