Voyeurism — that's clearly illegal, right? According to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, you are wrong. Since you are in a public place — standing in front of the clothes rack with that oh-so-cute jacket selection — you have no expectation of privacy.
Interestingly, the state of Washington decided something similar back in 2002. In that case the cops arrested a guy who was going around a local festival and taking pictures up ladies' dresses with the intent of selling them on "voyeur" websites.
Most statutes are written with the classic "peeping Tom" scenario in mind: young woman undressing in her second-floor apartment and peeping Tom up in a tree with binoculars watching. If a woman undressed in the main entranceway to the public courthouse, you wouldn't say anyone is a voyeur. So most statutes specify that voyeurism requires victims to be in places where they would have reasonable expectations of privacy, such as the bathroom, a bedroom, etc.
And that makes sense — if anyone seeing a bare breast was guilty of voyeurism, then intentional exposures to get people into trouble would suddenly be allowed. Think of the infamous Super Bowl incident with Janet Jackson a little while ago. Was anyone who saw that a voyeur? Probably not.
But this is, of course, a lousy result for this case, and it means the law doesn't protect against the peeping Tom with his cell phone camera running around — at least, not under the voyeur laws.
Other laws are probably more appropriate to deal with this situation, or they can be written. Until that day, be careful with your skirts, ladies!
