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 (44)
No. 1-36
DSmom
DSmom

I wonder how those judges would have decided had it been their daughters.

LynnSB
LynnSB

WTF is wrong with these Judges -~~~ Are they all MORONS ??

OzCop
OzCop

At least two of those judges have some degree of common sense and common decency...I wonder if those female judges would have acted the same had it been one of their own daughters...how pathetic of these so called "judges."

ArizonaG30
ArizonaG30

Maybe they all film and don't want to go to jail when caught

Oldmp
Oldmp

Would the judges have voted the same way had it been them that were videoed?? I think not.

ptindle
ptindle

You judges are just stupid,being filmed in her bedroom naked is not her normal everyday life,the piece of shit had one intent only you're stupid if you think otherwise,this is child pornography plain & simple!!

crnotaro
crnotaro

The judges need to be fired come election time!

Reregirl
Reregirl

This is disgusting. That fact they are female and more or less promote his actions is so far beyond disgusting. Recall

alpinecountrygirl
alpinecountrygirl

I find it really quite interesting that it was women in fact that decided this is not child porn! I wonder what it would be if those pictures were printed out and posted on Hall's walls? Naked videos or pictures printed out and hung on a wall of a minor child should both constitute child pornography!!! And the idea that he spends a year in jail when he was sentenced to 4 and then spends 4 years on probation is an insult to the minor victim and her parents!!! That jerk should HAVE to sit 4 years in jail and 4 years in probation if that's what the judge sentenced him to!!!!

Dog rescuer
Dog rescuer

I doubt they would feel the same way if it was their child or Grandchild.

La Migra
La Migra

The female judges that decided for this tool, won't mind having a camera in their dressing rooms.

Marrok30
Marrok30

This is on the state not the judges. Sadly the judges are correct the actions listed in this article do not even come close to the charge he was hit with. Once again a prosecutor got over zealous and a perverted creep will get away this. And the stupid sexist comments about they are women no less is sad. Put the blame where it belongs on the state and prosecutor not the Supreme Court who only interrupts the law as written

Marlis
Marlis

Somebody needs to change the law.

MrsS
MrsS

There’s something we need to read, this judgement makes NO sense

Heyyyyseth
Heyyyyseth

Yes it is child porn.. fuckin pieces of shit

AnneH
AnneH

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????

Righton17
Righton17

Where is dad! Maybe he could get away with murder the way this perv got away with child porn!

Jewelsbaby
Jewelsbaby

Does a pubesent teen have no right to privacy while changing clothes in her own room? It wasn't as if she done this in public! These judges clearly are not right! We're they bought? Who knows but I think he is a dangerous pediofile!

MFLindsey
MFLindsey

People get so excited about semantics without any understanding of substance. Tennessee law requires an action beyond nudity to be Porn. Clearly by that definition this is not porn. Clearly it is illegal, disgusting and i have no problem with making this a capitol offense. What is confusing to ignorant people is that for years now liberal courts have been creating their own laws as they see fit in direct violation of the Constitution. Anything liberals couldn't get passed in elections they just found liberal judges to violate the law and make it happen. That's the slippery slope that has led us into the third world toilet we are quickly becoming. . .

AkHounds
AkHounds

I'm obviously missing something. I don't see him charged with making or possessing child porn, or any pornogrophy charge whatsoever, so what bearing would that have had on a higher court? Nope, didn't meet the standard of making child porn, they're right. But as for "attempted especially-aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor", which is what the article says he was charged with, I would think it would be a perfect fit.

Danimyl
Danimyl

They have to be out of their minds

OakwoodLT5
OakwoodLT5

Hmm....Tennessee....”Deliverance”....Not surprised!!!!

Mic911
Mic911

You can bet that if any of the female judges have daughters and this had happened to them, that guy would be locked up for life!! Bunch of crazies on that Court!!

Bigg59
Bigg59

Thats about as sick as sick gets lock that perv up and I totally agree with Mic911

Slothman
Slothman

Being Tennessee...I'm sure the judge writing the opinion consulted with her Brother/Husband and her Uncle/Father and Mother/Sister before rendering her decision 🤨 I'm kidding of course 😏

JLo1
JLo1

Sad verdict! Hope it goes further up the court system!

Marxest
Marxest

Wow, if that isn't injustice, I don't know what is.

HAWAIIBLUE
HAWAIIBLUE

Put a camera in one of their bedrooms or daughters bedrooms and see how they feel when they see what their case presidence has set. I bet it will be heard “differently”

Bob H
Bob H

And you wonder why law enforcement just throws their hands up at times!

Allacra
Allacra

It does not sound like pornography to me. It is voyeurism and pedophilia. So disgusting! He should have spent much more time in jail!

Nan2be
Nan2be

Really? Three women and two men reached this conclusion?? What's going on in our courts? What about the childs rights?? Disgusting!

TrueAmerican
TrueAmerican

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

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 !!!!

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!

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.

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!