5 Sheriffs arrested a Lake Travis High School student Monday for allegedly taking close-up photos of females’ bodies without their consent.
Anthony Marco Gigliotti, 17, faces a state jail felony charge of improper photography for allegedly using his cell phone camera to take photos of 39 females without their permission, according to an arrest affidavit.
On Jan. 6, another student reported seeing Gigliotti taking photos in class with his cell phone of a 17-year-old female student without her permission, the warrant stated.
His phone was confiscated and Gigliotti admitted to the high school’s assistant principal that he took the photos without her permission, according to the affidavit.
“Anthony also told [the administrator] that he took the pictures because sex education was lacking at Lake Travis High School,” detectives wrote.
He also allegedly told the assistant principal that he took the photos “because it was so hard to practice abstinence and things were so different today regarding sex education,” the investigator wrote in his arrest warrant.
Lake Travis ISD officials refuted Gigliotti’s claim, noting that sex education is part of the curriculum.
“The student’s claim contained in the arrest affidavit (regarding the lack of sex education at the school) is completely unfounded. Sex education is part of LTISD’s overall comprehensive health plan which is developed in conjunction with parents who are members of the district’s School Health Advisory Committee,” wrote Marco Alvarado, LTISD director of communications, in a statement.
When detectives searched Gigliotti’s phone they recovered 143 photos of close-up parts of 39 clothed females’ bodies that were inappropriate in nature. They also located photos of a 15-year-old female on the phone, according to the arrest warrant.
“Anthony also told me he knew what he was doing was wrong but he ignored his conscience and took the photos anyway,” a detective wrote in the warrant.
One of the women he allegedly photographed began to cry when the detective showed her the 25 photos he took of her and told him she didn’t know Gigliotti was taking photos of her, according to the warrant.
The 17-year-old told the investigator she wished to press charges, but “[she] went on to say that Anthony was a friend of hers and she didn’t want him to get in any trouble,” he wrote.
Gigliotti, a junior at LTHS, was released from Travis County Jail on $5,000 bond.
He also faces disciplinary action from the school district.
“This is an isolated incident which the district takes very seriously,” Alvarado wrote.
81° F
|
Thursday, May 24, 2012 |
This is the dumbest and scariest thing I have ever read! A teenage boy arrested for taking pictures of fully clothed girls. I did not even realize taking photos of people without thier consent was against the law!
Since this is evidently true, I suggest no more photos be taken at football games (like the ones on the right). And for heavens sakes don’t take pictures at a basketball game where you might get an unsuspecting students fully clothed body in the photo! You will get arrested and charged with a felony!
I can understand if these photos were nude or semi nude, but simply taking a photo of someone in oublic with a cell phone camera is against the law? What law? When did thhis go into effect? And why do they still allow cameras at school events? Personally, I think the whole world has gone mad.
This is a narrowly defined law which I suspect this defendant may be guilt of violating:
Definition of Improper Photography or Visual Recording – Texas Penal Code Section 21.15
§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING.
a) In this section, “promote” has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means visually records another:
(A) without the other person’s consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording described by Subdivision (1).
c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
Your post disturbed me – did you not read the entire article and comprehend it? This young man took “inappropriate pictures” of girls, mainly “close up parts”. Basically the writer of this article was sensitive enough to not spell out that this man was taking lewd pictures despite the young girls being clothed. Would you want your daughter/granddaughter to be sitting in a classroom, attempting to gain a quality education while a classmate zoomed in on her bluejeans? On her blouse?
Please re-read the article and have some sensitivity!
Shocking. Were the parents present when the principal was questioning since it was a matter of law? Is the principal’s interview admissible since parents were not present and it was not consented to? Does the child get 2 years for every photo if found guilty in a court of law?
After almost one year, I still think the world has gone mad. And yes, I did read the article and comprehend it – thanks for your concern NP.
I think any law that convicts people of any age when they take a photo of a fully clothed person is scary – whether they zoom in on the nose, crotch or finger nail. Our government already regulates and oversees way too much of our lives – the light bulbs we can buy, the flow of our toilets, they see our private parts when we fly, they tax and see every aspect of our financial lives. Needless to say, I could go on and on.
And lest we forget the double standard here. This young man can get arrested for taking a photo of a fully clothed person yet his friend can go home and watch under-age soft porn on MTV (”Skins”) or any number of TV shows. Or, if he has no access to a TV, he can open up an advertisement for Kohl’s in the newspaper and see women in under garments and short pants (and in the summer, he can see women in bikini’s!) Oh my!
To me, this is the thought police going way too far. If someone is taking photos of nude minors – lock ‘em up. But fully clothed people with the intent of maybe looking at them in a sexual way later? Give me a break (And watch the hypocrisy here NP, say that when you were younger you NEVER looked at a photo of a man or woman you took and (God forbid) lusted after them? If so, under this silly law, you should have been arrested.