But it was his own locker room (Update: it seems they weren’t nudes)

 

Looks like we’re heading into another terror era with this wacky, paranoid, hypocritical, witch-hunting culture of ours. Egged on of course by our 21st-century yellow-journalism media.

Bottom line here? He was taking videos at his work site, and he works at a pool. Big frigging deal.

Burbank Police have arrested a Burbank Park & Recreation employee after he was caught shooting cell phone video in the lifeguards locker room at Verdugo Pool.

The man, identified as a current lifeguard at the pool, was caught by a staff member with the phone earlier in the day. After the staff member reported the incident to their supervisor, the man was confronted by the supervisor and his phone was confiscated which had the video that he shot still on it.

According to a source that could not be identified, the employee has been with the City as a employee since 2009 and was promoted to lifeguard in 2010.

Burbank police were asked about the incident and only confirmed that an arrest had been made and did not identify the employee and will be putting out a statement at a later time.

The employee was put immediately on paid leave with the City Attorney’s Office is aggressively pursuing termination and charges.

It was not immediately known if the person being taped was a member of the public or a staff member.
There is also a possibility that the phone might have been placed in public locker rooms. Anyone with information is encouraged to call the Burbank Police at 818 238-3000

Termination for what? If it was in his own locker room then it’s like he was shooting pics in his own office. What’s on the tape? That’s what counts. Maybe he was making a film or a documentary.

Don’t laugh. People in Burbank do this all the time. Where do you think we live? Unless there’s something truly culpable there, this is insane. And who confiscated the phone anyway? The supervisor? On what legal grounds?

Remember that fruit of the poisoned tree thing?

(p.s — you think anyone in the rest of the media will think to ask what he shot? Or will they just swallow whole the official fear and paranoia?)

UPDATE: the story’s been changed several times since this version– each time certain information leaning towards his innocence was replaced with allegations about the evidence. The latest version leaves out the supervisor’s intercession.

Again, who seized the phone from the employee? His lawyers will certainly want to know. It sounds like an illegal seizure, and also a huge, huge custody of evidence problem. The phone didn’t go straight from suspect to PD.

Legally, that supervisor should NEVER have taken that phone away from the employee. Which explains why the news story was later altered to hide this fact.

As you can probably tell, we don’t believe anything we read in the papers when it relies entirely upon statements from the police. It doesn’t matter where.

Why is that? It’s because we’ve known too many lawyers!

UPDATE #2

So they weren’t nudes:

Montano has been arrested and booked into the Burbank City Jail for possessing images of a minor, which he used for the purpose of sexual stimulation and on six counts of concealing a camera to videotape the less than fully clothed bodies of others without their knowledge, for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Because if they were, they’d be saying it. So absent nudity and sexual situations, exactly what are those charges? A good attorney could make mincemeat of this case. And if he was using the camera himself, he wasn’t in concealment. They saw him!

And he works at a POOL on top of that! So this “less than fully clothed” bit is total b.s. Everyone there is.

What this means folks is that ANYONE can be arrested for taking photos at the beach, at the pool, or in your own locker room. Or photos of your female co-workers. You’re doing it for sexual stimulation!

No? Prove your not…

We also find it difficult to believe that any lifeguard employee would be doing this after almost 10 years on the job. It would have been discovered much, much earlier if truly illegal and sexual in nature.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “But it was his own locker room (Update: it seems they weren’t nudes)

  1. Irwin Fletcher

    That’s much different than the Leader article:

    “A city-employed lifeguard was arrested Wednesday after reportedly videotaping and photographing minor girls and women in a public restroom and an employee locker room at the Verdugo Park Pool, police said.

    Shortly after 9 a.m., police responded to the pool, where they found images and videos on 23-year-old Arturo Montano’s phone, according to Burbank Police Sgt. Claudio Losacco.

    Montano’s coworker had reportedly seen the camera in a locker room and told a manager.

    Investigators subsequently served a search warrant at Montano’s home in Sun Valley and seized his computer.

    Join the conversation on Facebook >>

    Several juvenile and adult victims have been identified, though their ages were not available.

    Montano was arrested on suspicion of possessing images of a minor for the purpose of sexual stimulation and concealing a camera to videotape the less-than-fully-clothed bodies of others without their knowledge for the purpose of sexual gratification, Losacco said.

    Montano is being held in lieu of $170,000 bail and is due in court later this week.”

    Alene Tchekmedyian

    • semichorus

      Every time it changes it makes the employee appear more culpable, and the employer less. What a coink-i-dink.

      I go with Craig’s original. Next they’ll be saying the suspect had terrorist materials.

      I’m curious too if the female employee was also the informant, and what their relationship was. I have a difficult time believing that a 23-year-old lifeguard needs photos for sex.

      When it comes to sex or the police, I never believe what I see in the news.

  2. Irwin Fletcher

    Is it less of a crime if the purpose of the non-consensual recording was not “for sexual stimulation or gratification”? What a strange phrasing of law. If you are secretly recording someone, wearing a 3 piece suit, bathing suit or birthday suit- it would still be illegal and creepy, right? What if casual videos of people buying chips and soda from the Snack Bar lady were used for “sexual stimulation”? Is that illegal?

    • semichorus

      They’re trying to claim that semi-clothed photos are automatically used for sexual gratification purposes. But if his workplace is a pool, and he’s a lifeguard, and he’s shooting photos of his workplace, his lawyer will have a field day with them in court.

      That’s why they keep changing the story. I also love how finding a cellphone in a locker room is somehow immediately alarming.

      Craig does a good job on these stories. The Leader sucks Establishment dick. The Leader version makes no sense at all.

      I don’t believe either that a hunky 23-year-old lifeguard needs to use photos and videos for sexual gratification, or that that’s why he took them. He’s been there 6 years?

      Nope, this is political/retaliatory. I wouldn’t trust the motives of the co-worker or informants. The supervisor too illegally seized and searched the phone, which means the “evidence” can be easily suppressed by a good attorney. Government employees can’t just do that.

      We shall see what happens. The more outraged, alarmist, and sensational this story gets, the more it’s being trumped up for effect.

      • CornFused

        I agree with a lot of your thoughts on this, but the comment you made…
        “I don’t believe either that a hunky 23-year-old lifeguard needs to use photos and videos for sexual gratification” is beyond belief. Do really think porn is just for unhunky kids or old people. That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in a long time.

        • semichorus

          It’s not porn, first of all. Big difference.

          And why would he need to?

          Why is him having a cellphone in his locker room such an act of culpability? Why is taking videos of your lifeguard workplace evidence of sexual gratification? I’d like to see everything he shot, not just the curated version.

          They’re clearly misusing this “less than fully dressed” claim to make it look like the accused was trying to capture a perversely unusual and private situation for sexual purposes. But it was his workplace, where everyone looks like that!

          That’s not the point of the law and its application. It’s clearly intended for OTHER circumstances and environments.

          I also don’t buy the narrative– whatever it is. Because it’s changed about four times already.

          Like I said, next the papers will be telling us that they found bomb making material at his home.

          • CornFused

            As I mentioned, I agree with just about all of your points. I also don’t trust the people or group behind any of this till some actual proof comes out.

            But…age, shape or profession doesn’t exclude anyone from using pictures or videos for sexual stimulation. That was my point. There’re people that get off on foot videos. In their eyes, it’s sexually stimulating. Should someone be offended by a stranger taking pics of their feet without consent, then giving it a “go” when they get home? Not sure.

            • semichorus

              Well that’s the thing- it’s in the eye of the beholder, obviously.

              I’d love to see his whole video — I’ll bet in context it’s pretty benign. But the cops will splice together what they think are all the naughty parts and try to get him to plead out. The papers will dutifully report the sensationalized story.

  3. Irwin Fletcher

    Unless he was masturbating, how can anyone claim to know the purpose of his photos?

    • CornFused

      As I mentioned before, I don’t hold much faith in the people keeping “justice” in our beloved Burbank and will wait till the proof of this case comes out before making an opinion…but Irwin you have to be kidding me with that.

      Do you think they really had to catch “Jared from Subway” in the act, to prove the content on his computer drives were wrong?

    • semichorus

      I think the Jared stuff was actual sexual material. This was just people in bathing suits or — possibly — changing. Nothing even about nudity mentioned- and it would have been.

      • Cornfused

        When I was younger the “new and exciting” was delivered to my house in the form of a “Victorias Secret” catalog. Quite a step up from the old Sears catalog, but most kids even managed with that.

        I wonder if they’ll ever come out with exactly was on the kids phone.

  4. Citizen Cane

    This guy will get a job at Target!

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s