Court Rules Secretly Filming Naked 13 Year Old In Her Bedroom Isn't Child Porn

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that a hidden camera used on a 13-year-old girl does not meet the definition of porn.

Nashville, TN – The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 7 that a man who hid a video camera in the bedroom of a 13-year-old girl was not guilty of trying to make child pornography.

David Hall was 50 years old and living with a relative and her two young daughters in May of 2010 when the incident occurred, the Associated Press reported.

Court filings showed that Hall was helping the relative repair their flood-damaged home.

One morning, while the 13-year-old daughter was in the shower, Hall put a video camera on top of her dresser under some clothes.

When the girl returned to the bedroom – dressed – she immediately noticed the blinking red light of the camera, the Associated Press reported.

She took the camera and gave it to her mother who called the police and had Hall arrested.

A Nashville judge found Hall guilty of attempted especially-aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor in a 2015 bench trial, according to the Associated Press.

Hall was sentenced to serve 12 months of a four-year sentence with four years of probation.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.

But then state Supreme Court’s ruling on Jan. 7 overturned Hall’s conviction.

The five judges had a split decision, according to the Associated Press.

The three majority judges, who are women, found that Hall’s actions didn’t meet the state’s definition of child pornography which requires more than just nudity.

Supreme Court Justice Holly Kirby wrote in the majority opinion about whether images of the girl getting dressed would have been pornography had they been recorded.

"The evidence presented at trial shows at most that the defendant intended to produce material that would include images of the minor victim engaged in everyday activities ordinarily performed in the nude," she wrote, according to the Associated Press.

Kirby was joined in her opinion by Justices Cornelia Clark and Sharon Lee.

The dissenting judges said that the most important factor was Hall’s intent, according to the Associated Press.

Supreme Court Justice Roger Page argued that it wasn’t possible to know what the camera would have recorded.

Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivens joined Page in his dissent opinion.

The state of Tennessee has 90 days to file an appeal.

Comments
No. 1-25
Gap Filler
Gap Filler

"It's not possible to know his intent or what the camera would have recorded" ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? What reasonable person in America doesn't know exactly what this 50 year old man's intent was? Do we not also know what pictures he was hoping this camera would capture for him? Good lord people, if it acts like a pedophile, talks like a pedophile, and quacks like a pedophile, THEN IT IS A PEDOPHILE!!!! This is not rocket science here, lock his sick a$$ up and let genral population deal with him!

HH3
HH3

Maybe when Hall gets out of prison he can help one of the justices around the house. He will need a place to live.

qazwiz
qazwiz

these commentators seem to not know what pornography and pedophilia is, sure what he did was wrong, but court is saying it isn't pornographic.

Cherubim is name for those baby sized nude, sometimes winged statues. they don't evoke sexual desire in overwhelmingly large majority of population. thus not pornographic.

Court is saying same here... you need more than nudity to be pornographic (or even criminal) otherwise EVERY LIVING BEING would a criminal of pornographic actions. You don't REQUIRE pictures / videos to be pornographic either, just a lot easier to prove when suggestive actions are recorded.

Nor is the court releasing this PoS with this ruling... the girl's privacy was still invaded... not sure about Tennessee laws but for sure her bedroom isn't public so the recording is certainly illegal although "spy camera" laws vary by state it could be felony in one state and misdemeanor in another.

I'm greatly disappointed by the general "tabloid" mentality of society. you need to pick your battles or YOU will create situation where law is so convoluted that our constitutional rights end up releasing REAL PEDOPHILES because law is to vague ... at a time when 8 yo boys are photographed with naked adults in drag, celebrated for performing in drag shows, and being used by media to promote unnatural life choices, why worry about an up-skirting wannabe ... at this rate you'll be able to marry that girl's younger sister... you sickos!

LynnSB
LynnSB

What Absolute MORONS !!!! Supreme Court Justice Roger Page argued that it wasn’t possible to know what the camera would have recorded. Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivens joined Page in his dissent opinion. Hmm Placing it in the YOUNG GIRLS BEDROOM >> One morning, while the 13-year-old daughter was in the shower, Hall put a video camera on top of her dresser under some clothes. -- She was coming out of the Shower into HER Bedroom -- what did this POS think he was going to record ?? and these Ignorant Judge's just let a Pedophile go !!!!

TrueAmerican
TrueAmerican

How are we supposed to protect our children with Judges like these?!!!