he will not be jailed. so just feast your eyes on that one, ladies. keep a good look out for him. and mind your skirt. mel robins, criminal defense attorney in boston, is here with me live to try to figure this one out. how did this what? i mean, that s really what i have to ask, what? how did this happen? well, ashleigh, he will be judged, my friend. he will be judged. he s going to be judged right here and right now by you and me. you got that right, sister. he was charged under the peeping tom laws in massachusetts. and during the hearings before trial his they tried to dismiss the case saying, hey, listen, women that are already clothed don t have a right to privacy. and by the way, their clothed so they re not partially nude. and the court dismissed the claim, it appealed, appealed, appealed, went up to the supreme judicial court and believe it or not they agreed with the defendant. the supreme judicial court, which is seven judges here in
so no woman in her right mind is wearing a skirt without tights today. they re going to fix this, but this is foreshadowing for major problems to come as technology creeps not only up our skirts but everywhere else in our lives. excellent point. all right, mel robins, danny cevallos, joey jackson, i m not done. i m going to say this, the law, sure, the procedure, sure, the spirit, sure. but this dude he may have won the battle, but that dude well, i think you could say he s lost the war on dating because i am going to put that picture up everywhere i can. that guy s out there with his camera. he s not going to be behind bars where i dare say he might get more action than he s going to get now. and i ll tell you something else, he got a shot at justice. he got his shot at you. but he s not really going to get a shot at the ladies. but because of him, the law s going to be changed, ashleigh. and as a result women will be protected. and that is a very good thing.
if you re angry at anyone, don t be you too, mel. don t be angry at the court. be angry at the legislature. because they correctly applied the law as defined. first, what is partial nudity? well, they look to the statute and partial nudity involves the exposure of a private part. and by exposure it means open to the public. if you don t like the way the court applied the law, then get angry at the legislature because they correctly read the law and said in this case there was no actual exposure. skirts are you know, skirts or kilts, joey, i know once in a while you ll throw on a isn t that what they re called? the problem with those issues is those are not exposed to the public, your private parts. although it s horrifically private. mel, give me ten seconds, talk me off the ledge. i d say put the thongs in the drawer and get out the shape wear until they get this thing oh, dear god, you did not. i did. it s 20 degrees here in boston,
massachusetts, highest court, said basically, ladies, when you re wearing a skirt, number one, you got clothing on. and number two, if you re sitting on the subway, there are cameras, there are people, you re in public, you ve got no right to privacy. what i say and i m sure you re going to agree with it, they call it private parts for a reason. they do not call it public bits. nicely put. ashleigh, check this out. we re not talking ukraine, we re talking underpants here, boston globe main story. so people are freaking out. mel, i want to bring in two guys who regularly comment on this program, hln s legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson and cnn s legal analyst danny cevallos. when i read this story, i immediately thought of you, but why i did is because i know we ve talked before on this program about your expectation of privacy. mel just dabbled in that. i always assumed your expectation of privacy isn t confined to a space, like a bathroom or bedroom in your
the crowd here will only grow throughout the week. on wednesday they are planning an overnight vigil or presence here at the state capitol. and they promise to be here every single day until she decides. erin? thank you very much, miguel. obviously it will be a crucial week there. there are a lot of other states looking at the same kind of legislation. outfront tonight, a lawyer for the organization that has testified in favor of the bill for the arizona state legislature and mel robins, a defense attorney, radio talk show host. good to have you both. doug, let me start with you, you were talking about this on friday, why you believe this bill makes sense but obviously the key supporters are holding tonight, three state senators who backed the bill, supported it are now saying they made a mistake. do you think it could be a mistake? not at all. what s at stake here is whether arizona will be a safe place for people of faith. this is a common sense bill that balances religious liber